Yes, but why then? The Tories have been around for centuries, so why therefore did they suddenly decide to ''reach out to people'' (a strategy with mixed success) around 2005/6? Sadiq Khan isn't likely to win Labour's mayoral nomination, and his silly ideas are hardly official party policy.
Because, for most of the 20th Century, women voted Conservative at higher rates than men. That changed about a decade a go so we needed to reach out more to women again. I also need not point out that we elected a woman leader almost 40 years ago. That is part of a long tradition back to Wellington and Disraeli of appointing leaders from different backgrounds - part of the proud Tory tradition of meritocracy, putting in the best person for the job, regardless of religion, ethnicity or gender. Labour could learn a lot from that.
I'll remember your comment on Khan when he becomes the nominee.
But the A-list wasn't just about women voters. It was also about the Conservatives' long-standing issues with BMEs, too. And you may have selected a woman leader more than 40 years ago, and apparently have a 'proud Tory tradition of meritocracy', but it's strange, in that case that the party had to go to significant lengths to prove how inclusive they are, given that many groups were not convinced by this 'proud tradition of meritocracy'. And still remain unconvinced. Something for Tories to ponder?
Many remain unconvinced because many do not pay close attention to politics, and those on the left, like Diane Abbott, are often stirring the pot about how Tories don't represent black people. Then there are men like Khan who promise preferences to non-white racial groups, and imply those that oppose such things are anti-ethnic minority. As a great man once said, you can fool some of the people all of the time. We must just keep on making our case.
So BMEs who don't like/don't vote Tory are just 'wrong'? Although Abbott's stirring doesn't help, BMEs have minds of their own and Abbott in part gets away with saying these kinds of things, because a lot of people from BME groups feel that way, that the Tories do not represent them, or their interests instinctively. There are plenty of people who vote Tory, and feel they represent their interests and yet don't follow politics closely.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Women only sessions happen because of fear they will be leered at and judged by men for not conforming to an ideal body type, even if they are there to get fit. Many women feel awfully conscious about their bodies. The only way round this issue is to make women feel they will not be unfairly judged because they don't have an ideal body.
Yes, but why then? The Tories have been around for centuries, so why therefore did they suddenly decide to ''reach out to people'' (a strategy with mixed success) around 2005/6? Sadiq Khan isn't likely to win Labour's mayoral nomination, and his silly ideas are hardly official party policy.
Because, for most of the 20th Century, women voted Conservative at higher rates than men. That changed about a decade a go so we needed to reach out more to women again. I also need not point out that we elected a woman leader almost 40 years ago. That is part of a long tradition back to Wellington and Disraeli of appointing leaders from different backgrounds - part of the proud Tory tradition of meritocracy, putting in the best person for the job, regardless of religion, ethnicity or gender. Labour could learn a lot from that.
I'll remember your comment on Khan when he becomes the nominee.
But the A-list wasn't just about women voters. It was also about the Conservatives' long-standing ponder?
Many remain unconvinced because many do not pay close attention to politics, and those on the left, like Diane Abbott, are often stirring the pot about how Tories don't represent black people. Then there are men like Khan who promise preferences to non-white racial groups, and imply those that oppose such things are anti-ethnic minority. As a great man once said, you can fool some of the people all of the time. We must just keep on making our case.
So BMEs who don't like/don't vote Tory are just 'wrong'? .
Well, though politicians cannot say it, voters of all types are often wrong. They don't understand what they're told (though intentional obfuscation, generic phrasing and whataboutery from them are often partly responsible for that), they fail to see what's good for them, they hold onto visions of what parties and leaders are about which may bear no relation to the current reality (again, the politicians reinforce this, however), and they will outright vote for people and things that go against the things they claim to want or like, often on the basis of gut feel about how they think they should vote which may be based on inaccurate information (we know this to be true as peoples' opinion of an idea will change depending on which party proposes it).
And yes, I'm no doubt guilty of this. I'll try to give Corbyn a fair shake, like I gave Ed M (he wasn't as bad as made out), but anything he proposes will no doubt be more critically appraised by me than if someone else proposed it.
Yes, but why then? The Tories have been around for centuries, so why therefore did they suddenly decide to ''reach out to people'' (a strategy with mixed success) around 2005/6? Sadiq Khan isn't likely to win Labour's mayoral nomination, and his silly ideas are hardly official party policy.
Because, for most of the 20th Century, women voted Conservative at higher rates than men. That changed about a decade a go so we needed to reach out more to women again. I also need not point out that we elected a woman leader almost 40 years ago. That is part of a long tradition back to Wellington and Disraeli of appointing leaders from different backgrounds - part of the proud Tory tradition of meritocracy, putting in the best person for the job, regardless of religion, ethnicity or gender. Labour could learn a lot from that.
I'll remember your comment on Khan when he becomes the nominee.
But the A-list wasn't just about women voters. It was also about the Conservatives' long-standing ponder?
Many remain unconvinced because many do not pay close attention to politics, and those on the left, like Diane Abbott, are often stirring the pot about how Tories don't represent black people. Then there are men like Khan who promise preferences to non-white racial groups, and imply those that oppose such things are anti-ethnic minority. As a great man once said, you can fool some of the people all of the time. We must just keep on making our case.
So BMEs who don't like/don't vote Tory are just 'wrong'? .
Well, though politicians cannot say it, voters of all types are often wrong. They don't understand what they're told (though intentional obfuscation, generic phrasing and whataboutery from them are often partly responsible for that), they fail to see what's good for them, they hold onto visions of what parties and leaders are about which may bear no relation to the current reality (again, the politicians reinforce this, however), and they will outright vote for people and things that go against the things they claim to want or like, often on the basis of gut feel about how they think they should vote which may be based on inaccurate information (we know this to be true as peoples' opinion of an idea will change depending on which party proposes it).
And yes, I'm no doubt guilty of this. I'll try to give Corbyn a fair shake, like I gave Ed M (he wasn't as bad as made out), but anything he proposes will no doubt be more critically appraised by me than if someone else proposed it.
In this case though, I've yet to see why certain groups are 'wrong' in their assessment of the Conservatives.
But the bits that were inaccurate were the point. His remarks (presumably these) covered several points. He garbled them a bit but if we separate them out they are as follows:
* 1: A violent destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion * 2: This culture uses Jamaican patois * 3: Black and white boys and girls operate in this language * 4: This language is wholly false * 5: This language has been intruded in England * 6: Consequently many people have a sense of [England being?] literally a foreign country. * 7: [Consequently?] the whites have become black * 8: [An example of this is] David Lammy, an archetypal successful black man. If you turn the screen off so that you are listening to him on radio you would think he was white.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary I'm perfectly prepared to believe that 1,2,3,4,5,6 are factually accurate (although I wouldn't use the same terminology). And if he'd phrased 7 as "the whites have adopted characteristics usually associated with blacks", then that would have been the same. But for point 7 he jumped from associated characteristics (language) to actual characteristics (skin color) and said "the whites have become black" and made point 7 factually inaccurate.
Now we come to point 8. Stating that there is a speech pattern associated with blacks, and that whites have adopted this speech pattern, is believable. But that's logically insufficient if you then wish to assert that the speech pattern of successful people can be characterised as "white". He did not add sufficient evidence to justify this assertion. Hence the uproar.
Somewhat provocative headline by the Guardian – apparently he voted Green in GE2015
Tony Benn would be turning in his grave at the pitiful lack of democracy in today's labour party.and all the current leadership are doing is helping to strengthen the grievances and arguments of the Corbynite clan.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
I find that a sharp pin (brooches are useful) when inserted into somewhere soft belonging to the offending groper works very well. Stiletto heels aimed at the toes are good. And if all else fails, being prepared to embarrass someone can work a treat. "8 am is a bit early for a w*nk, don't you think?" Or "Can I offer you a tissue?" said in your loudest voice can work well.
DOW, S&P CLOSE LOWER IN BIGGEST REVERSAL SINCE OCT. 08 (CNBC)
U.S. stocks closed lower, after a failed attempt to rally from the Dow's worst 3-day point decline in history, as investor confidence waned amid continued concerns about China and global growth.
The Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500 closed about 1.3 percent lower after rallying nearly 3 percent earlier, their biggest reversal to the downside since Oct. 29, 2008. The S&P 500 remained in correction territory after falling there on Monday. The index also posted its first six-day losing streak since July 2012.
"That crash (Monday) was so big and so long since we had one (investors) don't want a repeat of 2008 so they bail out," said Lance Roberts, general partner at STA Wealth Management.
The Dow fell 205 points and S&P 500 closed below 1,900 after falling into negative territory in the last half hour of trade. The Nasdaq Composite failed to hold slight gains and closed 0.44 percent lower. ---------------------- IF CHINA FALLS AGAIN OVERNIGHT WE COULD BE IN FOR A PROLONGED COLD SPELL
Damned SNP, Salmond has a lot to answer for. Except for the part that's Nicola's fault.
Oh we know the Sainted Eck and Beloved Nicola are beyond criticism....how's that $100 oil doing?
The Union seems to be a very bad deal.
Your compatriots didn't seem to think so 11 months ago.....
Scottish born residents voted to dissolve the UK.
You sound like Jacques Parizeau in Quebec in 1995, 'noting that 60% of French-speakers had voted yes, he stated that he would address French-speaking Québécois as nous ("we"), and that they had spoken clearly in favour of the "Yes". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#Aftermath
Yes, but why then? The Tories have been around for centuries, so why therefore did they suddenly decide to ''reach out to people'' (a strategy with mixed success) around 2005/6? Sadiq Khan isn't likely to win Labour's mayoral nomination, and his silly ideas are hardly official party policy.
Because, for most of the 20th Century, women voted Conservative at higher rates than men. That changed about a decade a go so we needed to reach out more to women again. I also need not point out that we elected a woman leader almost 40 years ago. That is part of a long tradition back to Wellington and Disraeli of appointing leaders from different backgrounds - part of the proud Tory tradition of meritocracy, putting in the best person for the job, regardless of religion, ethnicity or gender. Labour could learn a lot from that.
I'll remember your comment on Khan when he becomes the nominee.
But the A-list wasn't just about women voters. It was also about the Conservatives' long-standing ponder?
Many remai
So BMEs who don't like/don't vote Tory are just 'wrong'? .
W
And ye
In this case though, I've yet to see why certain groups are 'wrong' in their assessment of the Conservatives.
Oh, they may well be right, I do not feel in a position to judge that myself (though I think if they are wrong, these things will shift in time as people realise it, the wisdom of crowds and all that, and conversely will remain or even intensify if they continue to be right), but I think it important to remember that it can be the case that individuals and groups may think a party does not look out for their interests and simply be incorrect, from an objective standpoint.
I have no doubt supporters of all parties feel the voting public are wrong to think their party does not have their best interests at heart and the best way to deal with them (Labour supporters in the south must be as frustrated with voters down here as Tory supporters in the NE are for not seeing how obviously right each one is for their regions respectively) - the alternative, for the losers, is that people know their party is best but vote against them anyway (the hard left interpretation of assuming a few thousand marchers means the country is with them, and yet are stunned when this is not shown at the ballot box - this time's the charm?), which implies people are not just silly but actively self destructive, which I regard as the more insulting of the two options.
Somewhat provocative headline by the Guardian – apparently he voted Green in GE2015
Tony Benn would be turning in his grave at the pitiful lack of democracy in today's labour party.and all the current leadership are doing is helping to strengthen the grievances and arguments of the Corbynite clan.
Indeed. – A popular hashtag amongst the Corbynites is #LabourPurge” – The LL contest has been so badly handled that I’d hate to think what the backlash will be if Corbyn doesn’t win.
Somewhat provocative headline by the Guardian – apparently he voted Green in GE2015
Tony Benn would be turning in his grave at the pitiful lack of democracy in today's labour party.and all the current leadership are doing is helping to strengthen the grievances and arguments of the Corbynite clan.
If Corbyn narrowly loses, we are going to see out and out civil war in the labour party.
Well, though politicians cannot say it, voters of all types are often wrong. They don't understand what they're told (though intentional obfuscation, generic phrasing and whataboutery from them are often partly responsible for that), they fail to see what's good for them, they hold onto visions of what parties and leaders are about which may bear no relation to the current reality (again, the politicians reinforce this, however), and they will outright vote for people and things that go against the things they claim to want or like, often on the basis of gut feel about how they think they should vote which may be based on inaccurate information (we know this to be true as peoples' opinion of an idea will change depending on which party proposes it).
Voters are not 'wrong'. That is lazy speak for I don't understand why x voted that way and I, with all my superiority, think they should have voted otherwise, hence they are 'wrong'.
Voters may very quickly regret voting decisions, or have buyer's remorse, but even that does not make their decision wrong. Voters may or may not understand an issue, or accept a lie about a party's intentions. But voting decisions are far more broadly based than a single issue. So even voters voting against their own interests on a single issue, knowingly or unknowingly, is still not evidence of voters being 'wrong'.
So BMEs who don't like/don't vote Tory are just 'wrong'? Although Abbott's stirring doesn't help, BMEs have minds of their own and Abbott in part gets away with saying these kinds of things, because a lot of people from BME groups feel that way, that the Tories do not represent them, or their interests instinctively. There are plenty of people who vote Tory, and feel they represent their interests and yet don't follow politics closely.
Of course, black people who don't like or don't vote Tory are 'wrong'. Just like white people who don't like or don't vote Tory are 'wrong'. The Conservatives are the best choice for government in this country, and anyone else who believes otherwise is sadly misguided. Any supporter of any party must surely feel that people voting for other parties are wrong.
Incidentally, I do detest the term "BME". It is ugly, tautological and lacks clarity over meaning.
Well, though politicians cannot say it, voters of all types are often wrong. They don't understand what they're told (though intentional obfuscation, generic phrasing and whataboutery from them are often partly responsible for that), they fail to see what's good for them, they hold onto visions of what parties and leaders are about which may bear no relation to the current reality (again, the politicians reinforce this, however), and they will outright vote for people and things that go against the things they claim to want or like, often on the basis of gut feel about how they think they should vote which may be based on inaccurate information (we know this to be true as peoples' opinion of an idea will change depending on which party proposes it).
Voters are not 'wrong'. That is lazy speak for I don't understand why x voted that way and I, with all my superiority, think they should have voted otherwise, hence they are 'wrong'.
Voters may very quickly regret voting decisions, or have buyer's remorse, but even that does not make their decision wrong. Voters may or may not understand an issue, or accept a lie about a party's intentions. But voting decisions are far more broadly based than a single issue. So even voters voting against their own interests on a single issue, knowingly or unknowingly, is still not evidence of voters being 'wrong'.
Yes, it pisses me off when people say that.
I should have clarified that when I said voters are often wrong, it is wrong in the sense that obviously parties think they are correct, so if people vote against them they have made the wrong decision. Yes, it's lazy terminology, but from a partisan point of view it makes sense, if one is the sort who characterises their opponents as being evil or other highly charged words. Since I don't characterise parties like that, I feel more confident in being smugly satisfied enough to typify those that do as seeing voters as wrong or self destructive.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
@JEO I use the term BME because I can't be borthered to write Black and Ethnic minorities repeatedly, or just ethnic minorities. BME is an easier abbreviation.
People vote in their self-interest (generally) - and many groups, feel that voting Tory is not their self-interest. If the Tories are the best choice of government for this country, then surely significant demographics should not feel this way? The Tories are great for old people and middle class people. But whether they are great for this country as a whole is another debate entirely.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Women only sessions happen because of fear they will be leered at and judged by men for not conforming to an ideal body type, even if they are there to get fit. Many women feel awfully conscious about their bodies. The only way round this issue is to make women feel they will not be unfairly judged because they don't have an ideal body.
Speaking as a mere male, I see plenty of males in the pool who do not conform to the 'ideal body type', yet insist on wearing inappropriate swimwear, which I am more than happy to laugh at.
I am still teased by the family I stayed with on my first visit here at age 15, when I had a pair of yellow Speedos, (they break out the slides every time I visit), and they admit that then I did have the appropriate body, but know I don't now, and it doesn't bother me at all.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Women only sessions happen because of fear they will be leered at and judged by men for not conforming to an ideal body type, even if they are there to get fit. Many women feel awfully conscious about their bodies. The only way round this issue is to make women feel they will not be unfairly judged because they don't have an ideal body.
Speaking as a mere male, I see plenty of males in the pool who do not conform to the 'ideal body type', yet insist on wearing inappropriate swimwear, which I am more than happy to laugh at.
I am still teased by the family I stayed with on my first visit here at age 15, when I had a pair of yellow Speedos, (they break out the slides every time I visit), and they admit that then I did have the appropriate body, but know I don't now, and it doesn't bother me at all.
I am still looking for a Borat swimsuit
I guess the difference is, is that there is a pressure on women to conform to a certain body type. There is an increasing pressure on men now, but it still doesn't compare to pressure women face. A lot of a woman's value is seen in how they look.
@JEO I use the term BME because I can't be borthered to write Black and Ethnic minorities repeatedly, or just ethnic minorities. BME is an easier abbreviation.
People vote in their self-interest (generally) - and many groups, feel that voting Tory is not their self-interest. If the Tories are the best choice of government for this country, then surely significant demographics should not feel this way? The Tories are great for old people and middle class people. But whether they are great for this country as a whole is another debate entirely.
So are white Polish people counted as ethnic minority within BME? What about white Irish or white Welsh? Why does 'black' need to be separated out from the other ethnic minorities?
As for voting, people should vote for the best government for the country overall, whether or not that coincides with their own self-interest, I think the best choice for the government of this country is the Conservative Party. Therefore, I think people who are either voting for their personal interests over the national interest are wrong, and also that people who think another party is the best party for the overall national interest is wrong.
I'm happy to accept other people have reasonable and well-thought out reasons for disagreeing with me. But I still think they are mistaken. If I did not, I would change my view to agree with them!
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
I find that a sharp pin (brooches are useful) when inserted into somewhere soft belonging to the offending groper works very well. Stiletto heels aimed at the toes are good. And if all else fails, being prepared to embarrass someone can work a treat. "8 am is a bit early for a w*nk, don't you think?" Or "Can I offer you a tissue?" said in your loudest voice can work well.
Well said. There's a good deal of despicable patronizing and discrimination in the whole concept that women are so much the weaker sex they are unable to handle themselves and hence need the protection of a women-only carriage.
All the women in my life would scoff at the idea, and would far rather take your approach. More power to their elbows.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
I haven't expressed an opinion, Richard, just reported a poll of people who do have one, partly in response to the posts suggesting this was a really weird idea that virtually nobody would want.
I dunno, myself. It seems a pity if it's necessary - I'd rather pay a little to have a conductor stroll up and down the carriages, prepared to halt the train at a station and get help to eject any serious trouble-makers. But I can see that if some women are nervous (more nervous than the fearless Cyclefree, bristling with sharp pins and stilettos) they might not feel that's safe enough. I take MrsB's point that feeling at risk of assaulted is more serious than feeling at risk of having to hear a noisy baby or being distracted at your club.
People vary a lot in how much harassment they'll accept. I remember my wife some years ago saying she'd been wolf-whistled from a building site, and called out "You shouldn't be working on a site if you can't see properly, mate", which she said got a satisfying laugh from the other workers. But she'd certainly draw the line at being alone in a carriage with a drunken groper.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
Why is the idea of single sex carriages acceptable but single race carriages not?
If the purpose of single race carriages was for a minority to avoid racially motivated attacks, then sure. I feel there's an fundamental difference between a deliberate attempt to exclude and restrict the rights of people versus a pragmatic attempt to protect a group.
I wonder, do those people who are so fundamentally against the principle of single-sex carriages have the same problem with single-sex prisons?
Corbyn really is bonkers.. Does he back "men only" carriages. I doubt he understands what anything is about as prejudice gets in the way..
A moron in fact.
Why would be the benefit of giving men their own carriages?
And what would be the benefit of "women only " carriages.. Its like Apartheid.
Women would be safer. FFS. What sort of contrarian are you? Unfortunately women are at risk of being propositioned, groped, touched up, assaulted etc etc on public transport. By men. And we don't like it or enjoy it and sometimes it is quite frightening. Usually worse late at night, after football or drink. Men are not generally at risk of any of those things from women. But you know that really, don't you? If you try to pretend it's not true, then you are either an idiot or Godfrey Bloom. Which amounts to the same thing.
Night all.
So the way to solve the problem is segregation?
It's a solution. The status quo has a problem, namely the greater propensity of women in a mixed group to be harrassed by that group. Women-only carriages offer a solution to this problem. Unfortunately, they also bring problems of their own (greater expense, entrenching inequality,etc) but you can see why some people think they're a good idea.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Women only sessions happen because of fear they will be leered at and judged by men for not conforming to an ideal body type, even if they are there to get fit. Many women feel awfully conscious about their bodies. The only way round this issue is to make women feel they will not be unfairly judged because they don't have an ideal body.
Speaking as a mere male, I see plenty of males in the pool who do not conform to the 'ideal body type', yet insist on wearing inappropriate swimwear, which I am more than happy to laugh at.
I am still teased by the family I stayed with on my first visit here at age 15, when I had a pair of yellow Speedos, (they break out the slides every time I visit), and they admit that then I did have the appropriate body, but know I don't now, and it doesn't bother me at all.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
@JEO I use the term BME because I can't be borthered to write Black and Ethnic minorities repeatedly, or just ethnic minorities. BME is an easier abbreviation.
People vote in their self-interest (generally) - and many groups, feel that voting Tory is not their self-interest. If the Tories are the best choice of government for this country, then surely significant demographics should not feel this way? The Tories are great for old people and middle class people. But whether they are great for this country as a whole is another debate entirely.
Black and Ethnic minorities? It should be "BEM", surely!
Minority ethnic sounds a little French ("minority ethnique", or somesuch!)
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Women only sessions happen because of fear they will be leered at and judged by men for not conforming to an ideal body type, even if they are there to get fit. Many women feel awfully conscious about their bodies. The only way round this issue is to make women feel they will not be unfairly judged because they don't have an ideal body.
Speaking as a mere male, I see plenty of males in the pool who do not conform to the 'ideal body type', yet insist on wearing inappropriate swimwear, which I am more than happy to laugh at.
I am still teased by the family I stayed with on my first visit here at age 15, when I had a pair of yellow Speedos, (they break out the slides every time I visit), and they admit that then I did have the appropriate body, but know I don't now, and it doesn't bother me at all.
I am still looking for a Borat swimsuit
I guess the difference is, is that there is a pressure on women to conform to a certain body type. There is an increasing pressure on men now, but it still doesn't compare to pressure women face. A lot of a woman's value is seen in how they look.
I have always told my 27 year old daughter, imagine a ring around you 18 inches out from your body. You cannot influence what happens outside that ring. You can influence your reaction inside that ring, and there lies your independence.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Women only sessions happen because of fear they will be leered at and judged by men for not conforming to an ideal body type, even if they are there to get fit. Many women feel awfully conscious about their bodies. The only way round this issue is to make women feel they will not be unfairly judged because they don't have an ideal body.
Speaking as a mere male, I see plenty of males in the pool who do not conform to the 'ideal body type', yet insist on wearing inappropriate swimwear, which I am more than happy to laugh at.
I am still teased by the family I stayed with on my first visit here at age 15, when I had a pair of yellow Speedos, (they break out the slides every time I visit), and they admit that then I did have the appropriate body, but know I don't now, and it doesn't bother me at all.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Women only sessions happen because of fear they will be leered at and judged by men for not conforming to an ideal body type, even if they are there to get fit. Many women feel awfully conscious about their bodies. The only way round this issue is to make women feel they will not be unfairly judged because they don't have an ideal body.
Speaking as a mere male, I see plenty of males in the pool who do not conform to the 'ideal body type', yet insist on wearing inappropriate swimwear, which I am more than happy to laugh at.
I am still teased by the family I stayed with on my first visit here at age 15, when I had a pair of yellow Speedos, (they break out the slides every time I visit), and they admit that then I did have the appropriate body, but know I don't now, and it doesn't bother me at all.
I am still looking for a Borat swimsuit
I guess the difference is, is that there is a pressure on women to conform to a certain body type. There is an increasing pressure on men now, but it still doesn't compare to pressure women face. A lot of a woman's value is seen in how they look.
I have always told my 27 year old daughter, imagine a ring around you 18 inches out from your body. You cannot influence what happens outside that ring. You can influence your reaction inside that ring, and there lies your independence.
Pressure is only pressure if you react to it.
Aye, but that wont allow her to play the victim and carve out special privileges and advantages.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Women only sessions happen because of fear they will be leered at and judged by men for not conforming to an ideal body type, even if they are there to get fit. Many women feel awfully conscious about their bodies. The only way round this issue is to make women feel they will not be unfairly judged because they don't have an ideal body.
Speaking as a mere male, I see plenty of males in the pool who do not conform to the 'ideal body type', yet insist on wearing inappropriate swimwear, which I am more than happy to laugh at.
I am still teased by the family I stayed with on my first visit here at age 15, when I had a pair of yellow Speedos, (they break out the slides every time I visit), and they admit that then I did have the appropriate body, but know I don't now, and it doesn't bother me at all.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
@JEO I use the term BME because I can't be borthered to write Black and Ethnic minorities repeatedly, or just ethnic minorities. BME is an easier abbreviation.
People vote in their self-interest (generally) - and many groups, feel that voting Tory is not their self-interest. If the Tories are the best choice of government for this country, then surely significant demographics should not feel this way? The Tories are great for old people and middle class people. But whether they are great for this country as a whole is another debate entirely.
So are white Polish people counted as ethnic minority within BME? What about white Irish or white Welsh? Why does 'black' need to be separated out from the other ethnic minorities?
In fact BAME is often used now to add Asian to the list. To the first point, yes, white polish people count within BAME, though a polish colleague of mine said they got funny looks when they showed up at a staff meeting for BAME, though they had been invited by the organisers.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Women only sessions happen because of fear they will be leered at and judged by men for not conforming to an ideal body type, even if they are there to get fit. Many women feel awfully conscious about their bodies. The only way round this issue is to make women feel they will not be unfairly judged because they don't have an ideal body.
Speaking as a mere male, I see plenty of males in the pool who do not conform to the 'ideal body type', yet insist on wearing inappropriate swimwear, which I am more than happy to laugh at.
I am still teased by the family I stayed with on my first visit here at age 15, when I had a pair of yellow Speedos, (they break out the slides every time I visit), and they admit that then I did have the appropriate body, but know I don't now, and it doesn't bother me at all.
I am still looking for a Borat swimsuit
I guess the difference is, is that there is a pressure on women to conform to a certain body type. There is an increasing pressure on men now, but it still doesn't compare to pressure women face. A lot of a woman's value is seen in how they look.
I have always told my 27 year old daughter, imagine a ring around you 18 inches out from your body. You cannot influence what happens outside that ring. You can influence your reaction inside that ring, and there lies your independence.
Pressure is only pressure if you react to it.
Aye, but that wont allow her to play the victim and carve out special privileges and advantages.
Women-only passenger cars are railway or subway cars intended for women only. They are offered on some trains in Japan, India, Egypt, Iran, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates, while passengers in some other countries have demanded their introduction.
@JEO I use the term BME because I can't be borthered to write Black and Ethnic minorities repeatedly, or just ethnic minorities. BME is an easier abbreviation.
People vote in their self-interest (generally) - and many groups, feel that voting Tory is not their self-interest. If the Tories are the best choice of government for this country, then surely significant demographics should not feel this way? The Tories are great for old people and middle class people. But whether they are great for this country as a whole is another debate entirely.
Eve teasing is a euphemism used in India[18] for public sexual harassment, or molestation of women by men, with Eve being a reference to the biblical Eve.[19] Across India, all long distance train services have special compartments reserved for ladies only. In Mumbai, the commercial metropolis, all suburban commuter trains have compartments specially meant only for ladies, though children of school-going age are also allowed to travel. While two compartments are designated for 24 hours for ladies, one compartment is reserved for ladies during specified hours. The ladies compartments are provided for first as well as second class travel. Besides, Ladies Special trains have been introduced during peak hours where the entire train is reserved for ladies. There are three-four ladies specials during peak hours. With the number of women needing to travel doubling since 1995, there is a very strong demand for these kinds of services.[20] Many rail services offer women-only cars, including among others the Delhi Metro.[21] It has even given rise to a women-only taxi service.[22]
So are white Polish people counted as ethnic minority within BME? What about white Irish or white Welsh? Why does 'black' need to be separated out from the other ethnic minorities?
As for voting, people should vote for the best government for the country overall, whether or not that coincides with their own self-interest, I think the best choice for the government of this country is the Conservative Party. Therefore, I think people who are either voting for their personal interests over the national interest are wrong, and also that people who think another party is the best party for the overall national interest is wrong.
I'm happy to accept other people have reasonable and well-thought out reasons for disagreeing with me. But I still think they are mistaken. If I did not, I would change my view to agree with them!
I don't think white Irish and Welsh would be counted. I don't know about white Polish. Good point though, in that it's weird Black is separated out from other ethnic minorities.
Arguably, the Tories benefited from people voting in their self-interest. The Tories are likely to take a selective approach to welfare reform, for example - dealing with those on low-incomes dependent on tax credits and other benefits, but not benefits received by the over 65s, despite the fact that much of the welfare budget is mad up of the state pensions. Other benefit expenditure is small by comparison. Real welfare reform would be not only tackling the benefits depended upon by those on low-incomes, but also dealing with the long-term issue of how unaffordable state pensions for all are becoming, in an era of an aging population. Yet the Conservatives, the party that apparently governs for all this country, won't do that. Why? It isn't that it relies on over 65s to vote for it significant numbers, is it?
I personally don't think the Tories are the best option for this country, in terms of a government. I think all the potential options are dismal, to be frank. Immigration, the number one concern this country has, hasn't a hope of being resolved by any of the big main two. The growing problem in this country - a lack of skills, and high-skill jobs in particular is hardly close to being dealt with either. If anything, the IDS culture of throwing anyone, no matter their skills into any kind of job - usually low-skill - makes the issue worse rather than better. The country has a growing housing crisis, that no one is solving too. And we are losing talent. And for all the rhetoric of debt, my generation is likely to be up to our eye-balls in it. Whether it be through tuition fees, to likely getting a mortgage (if we do) at a later age, and therefore may be unlikely to pay it off, debt will be with us from cradle to grave.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Women only sessions happen because of fear they will be leered at and judged by men for not conforming to an ideal body type, even if they are there to get fit. Many women feel awfully conscious about their bodies. The only way round this issue is to make women feel they will not be unfairly judged because they don't have an ideal body.
Speaking as a mere male, I see plenty of males in the pool who do not conform to the 'ideal body type', yet insist on wearing inappropriate swimwear, which I am more than happy to laugh at.
I am still teased by the family I stayed with on my first visit here at age 15, when I had a pair of yellow Speedos, (they break out the slides every time I visit), and they admit that then I did have the appropriate body, but know I don't now, and it doesn't bother me at all.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
I haven't expressed an opinion, Richard, just reported a poll of people who do have one, partly in response to the posts suggesting this was a really weird idea that virtually nobody would want.
I dunno, myself. It seems a pity if it's necessary - I'd rather pay a little to have a conductor stroll up and down the carriages, prepared to halt the train at a station and get help to eject any serious trouble-makers. But I can see that if some women are nervous (more nervous than the fearless Cyclefree, bristling with sharp pins and stilettos) they might not feel that's safe enough. I take MrsB's point that feeling at risk of assaulted is more serious than feeling at risk of having to hear a noisy baby or being distracted at your club.
People vary a lot in how much harassment they'll accept. I remember my wife some years ago saying she'd been wolf-whistled from a building site, and called out "You shouldn't be working on a site if you can't see properly, mate", which she said got a satisfying laugh from the other workers. But she'd certainly draw the line at being alone in a carriage with a drunken groper.
I can appreciate the truth of that being married to you
I have always told my 27 year old daughter, imagine a ring around you 18 inches out from your body. You cannot influence what happens outside that ring. You can influence your reaction inside that ring, and there lies your independence.
Pressure is only pressure if you react to it.
I think that's true on an individual level, but it's clear this pressure is more than that, which means that it isn't just the fault of women for feeling it. There are social attitudes in society which create pressures. Previously in this thread, a @Dair talked about the pressure men feel to breadwinners. Is it just men pressuring themselves, or is there a collective assumption in society that a man will be the main earner, that puts pressure on men as a whole to academically achieve, get decent jobs, and work longer hours at the expense of leisure time and health?
Aye, but that wont allow her to play the victim and carve out special privileges and advantages.
I'm not playing victim, nor do I look for special privileges and advantages. It's very simple: in my ideal world, I'd like women to be valued for who they are and what they contribute to the world.
So are white Polish people counted as ethnic minority within BME? What about white Irish or white Welsh? Why does 'black' need to be separated out from the other ethnic minorities?
As for voting, people should vote for the best government for the country overall, whether or not that coincides with their own self-interest, I think the best choice for the government of this country is the Conservative Party. Therefore, I think people who are either voting for their personal interests over the national interest are wrong, and also that people who think another party is the best party for the overall national interest is wrong.
I'm happy to accept other people have reasonable and well-thought out reasons for disagreeing with me. But I still think they are mistaken. If I did not, I would change my view to agree with them!
Voting in one's self-interest is the only way to vote. The issue is what is 'self-interest'? Again, it is a bundle of often contradictory needs, of which the interests of the nation are one group of needs (because if we vote against the interests of the state, eventually that impacts our own self-interest adversely).
@JEO I use the term BME because I can't be borthered to write Black and Ethnic minorities repeatedly, or just ethnic minorities. BME is an easier abbreviation.
People vote in their self-interest (generally) - and many groups, feel that voting Tory is not their self-interest. If the Tories are the best choice of government for this country, then surely significant demographics should not feel this way? The Tories are great for old people and middle class people. But whether they are great for this country as a whole is another debate entirely.
Black and Ethnic minorities? It should be "BEM", surely!
Minority ethnic sounds a little French ("minority ethnique", or somesuch!)
LOL! It would make more sense as BEM, as opposed to BME.
So are white Polish people counted as ethnic minority within BME? What about white Irish or white Welsh? Why does 'black' need to be separated out from the other ethnic minorities?
As for voting, people should vote for the best government for the country overall, whether or not that coincides with their own self-interest, I think the best choice for the government of this country is the Conservative Party. Therefore, I think people who are either voting for their personal interests over the national interest are wrong, and also that people who think another party is the best party for the overall national interest is wrong.
I'm happy to accept other people have reasonable and well-thought out reasons for disagreeing with me. But I still think they are mistaken. If I did not, I would change my view to agree with them!
I don't think white Irish and Welsh would be counted. I don't know about white Polish. Good point though, in that it's weird Black is separated out from other ethnic minorities.
Arguably, the Tories benefited from people voting in their self-interest. The Tories are likely to take a selective approach to welfare reform, for example - dealing with those on low-incomes dependent on tax credits and other benefits, but not benefits received by the ssue worse rather than better. The country has a growing housing crisis, that no one is solving too. And we are losing talent. And for all the rhetoric of debt, my generation is likely to be up to our eye-balls in it. Whether it be through tuition fees, to likely getting a mortgage (if we do) at a later age, and therefore may be unlikely to pay it off, debt will be with us from cradle to grave.
If you can work, you should. IDS is not throwing them into jobs. People can choose whether to work or not, but dont expect those who pay taxes to indulge you in your choices for long. You should have no sympathy for people who decide not to work.
If you can work, you should. IDS is not throwing them into jobs. People can choose whether to work or not, but dont expect those who pay taxes to indulge you in your choices for long. You should have no sympathy for people who decide not to work.
The trouble is that distinction. Most of those who are unemployed, will not have been long-term unemployed. They will have worked before, and therefore have been taxpayers. Since they have contributed into the system, it is not unreasonable now that they've fallen on hard times, for the system in return to support them until they get back up their feet again. And it's not really about not choosing to work, but rather having a choice in the kind of work you take. A person who is qualified, and had worked in a specific field will naturally want to find a long-term job that matches their skills, not in the least because it means in the long-term you'll no longer be unemployed, but also because you may get a decent wage and won't have to rely on state benefits. Simply slumming someone who say has skills in accountancy, into any low-skill job, or temporary job, can not only can be demoralising, but it also may not get someone back into work in long-term and may mean they have to rely on in-work benefits. It also may do very little to develop their skills to future employers, too.
(Snip) Arguably, the Tories benefited from people voting in their self-interest. The Tories are likely to take a selective approach to welfare reform, for example - dealing with those on low-incomes dependent on tax credits and other benefits, but not benefits received by the over 65s, despite the fact that much of the welfare budget is mad up of the state pensions. Other benefit expenditure is small by comparison. Real welfare reform would be not only tackling the benefits depended upon by those on low-incomes, but also dealing with the long-term issue of how unaffordable state pensions for all are becoming, in an era of an aging population. Yet the Conservatives, the party that apparently governs for all this country, won't do that. Why? It isn't that it relies on over 65s to vote for it significant numbers, is it? (Snip)
Which government was it that set in train raising the retirement age? I'll give you a clue. It wasn't Labour. Government is about making choices. In this case the coalition chose to raise the retirement age, but protect retirees' income a bit... not so unbalanced when you think about it.
Which government was it that set in train raising the retirement age? I'll give you a clue. It wasn't Labour. Government is about making choices. In this case the coalition chose to raise the retirement age, but protect retirees' income a bit... not so unbalanced when you think about it.
I know that, but that's hardly radical, nor does it affect current pensioners that much. Really, IMHO the state pension should be means-tested.
Mildly interesting, and also depressing for Labour, is that likely winner Jihadi Jez gets fewer Don't Knows than any of the others. This is an MP who was barely known to his three veiled wives about a month ago, let alone the wider public. Yet already the public had decided:ugh, no.
Wait til he is leader, and his silvery beard is on every TV screen for day after day, as he tells us how he's going to give Buckingham Palace, Gibraltar, and Joanna Lumley and to the Argentines as a form of reparations for the Falklands
Don't be ridiculous. He won't give Buckingham Place to Argrentina. He'll invite ISIS to come and blow it up.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
Nearly all these members are going to be nutters, Trots, SWPers, Stop the War hipsters with Tourettes, mad people, really mad people, Islamists, Respect members, Holocaust deniers, homeless Marxists, antisemites, TUSC members, 17 year olds, econazis, and cats.
What about neo-nutters, quasi-nutters, crypto-mad people and quasi-Clive Jenkins?
Mildly interesting, and also depressing for Labour, is that likely winner Jihadi Jez gets fewer Don't Knows than any of the others. This is an MP who was barely known to his three veiled wives about a month ago, let alone the wider public. Yet already the public had decided:ugh, no.
Wait til he is leader, and his silvery beard is on every TV screen for day after day, as he tells us how he's going to give Buckingham Palace, Gibraltar, and Joanna Lumley and to the Argentines as a form of reparations for the Falklands
Don't be ridiculous. He won't give Buckingham Place to Argrentina. He'll invite ISIS to come and blow it up.
Since you left the Loonies, you start to make them sound like paragons of rectitude...
Somewhat provocative headline by the Guardian – apparently he voted Green in GE2015
Tony Benn would be turning in his grave at the pitiful lack of democracy in today's labour party.and all the current leadership are doing is helping to strengthen the grievances and arguments of the Corbynite clan.
Isn't Mark Serwotka a Trot involved in the Socialist Party and supportive of various predecessors for the last 2 or 3 decades? There are also links to TUSC.
And he's proposed running candidates for the PCS Union. eg:
In an historic ballot, PCS members have decided that we cannot just sit back and wait for this to happen, and we will now consider backing or standing our own candidates in national elections.
Our ballot result shows there is a real desire to challenge the modern consensus that accepts cuts to jobs, pay, pensions and essential public services are necessary to 'deal with the deficit'. A consensus that condemns our communities to despair
....
So, where PCS members' jobs and public services are under threat, we will be pressing all candidates even harder to argue for this alternative. Where they refuse, we will consider throwing our weight behind those we can, in all conscience, support. Radical opposition to the diktats of the 'markets' has proven to be popular and successful in France, and we need candidates here who have the same courage and vision.
This is not a party political move. We have no interest in splitting the Labour vote to let a Tory in. Standing or supporting trade union candidates would be an exception, where no one else will stand up for our members' livelihoods and against the economic illiteracy of austerity.
We wouldn't have to do this if there were more Labour MPs prepared to speak up for trade union members, their families and their communities. But we do recognise that the choice between Tory and Labour cuts is no choice at all.
Not convinced by the "not party political" bit, and I would think he has a credible sounding defence in place - quite an operator.
Comments
And yes, I'm no doubt guilty of this. I'll try to give Corbyn a fair shake, like I gave Ed M (he wasn't as bad as made out), but anything he proposes will no doubt be more critically appraised by me than if someone else proposed it.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/25/labour-union-leader-vote-jeremy-corbyn-pcs-mark-serwotka?CMP=twt_gu
Somewhat provocative headline by the Guardian – apparently he voted Green in GE2015
* 1: A violent destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion
* 2: This culture uses Jamaican patois
* 3: Black and white boys and girls operate in this language
* 4: This language is wholly false
* 5: This language has been intruded in England
* 6: Consequently many people have a sense of [England being?] literally a foreign country.
* 7: [Consequently?] the whites have become black
* 8: [An example of this is] David Lammy, an archetypal successful black man. If you turn the screen off so that you are listening to him on radio you would think he was white.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary I'm perfectly prepared to believe that 1,2,3,4,5,6 are factually accurate (although I wouldn't use the same terminology). And if he'd phrased 7 as "the whites have adopted characteristics usually associated with blacks", then that would have been the same. But for point 7 he jumped from associated characteristics (language) to actual characteristics (skin color) and said "the whites have become black" and made point 7 factually inaccurate.
Now we come to point 8. Stating that there is a speech pattern associated with blacks, and that whites have adopted this speech pattern, is believable. But that's logically insufficient if you then wish to assert that the speech pattern of successful people can be characterised as "white". He did not add sufficient evidence to justify this assertion. Hence the uproar.
I have no doubt supporters of all parties feel the voting public are wrong to think their party does not have their best interests at heart and the best way to deal with them (Labour supporters in the south must be as frustrated with voters down here as Tory supporters in the NE are for not seeing how obviously right each one is for their regions respectively) - the alternative, for the losers, is that people know their party is best but vote against them anyway (the hard left interpretation of assuming a few thousand marchers means the country is with them, and yet are stunned when this is not shown at the ballot box - this time's the charm?), which implies people are not just silly but actively self destructive, which I regard as the more insulting of the two options.
Good night all.
Voters are not 'wrong'. That is lazy speak for I don't understand why x voted that way and I, with all my superiority, think they should have voted otherwise, hence they are 'wrong'.
Voters may very quickly regret voting decisions, or have buyer's remorse, but even that does not make their decision wrong. Voters may or may not understand an issue, or accept a lie about a party's intentions. But voting decisions are far more broadly based than a single issue. So even voters voting against their own interests on a single issue, knowingly or unknowingly, is still not evidence of voters being 'wrong'.
Yes, it pisses me off when people say that.
Incidentally, I do detest the term "BME". It is ugly, tautological and lacks clarity over meaning.
Voters are not 'wrong'. That is lazy speak for I don't understand why x voted that way and I, with all my superiority, think they should have voted otherwise, hence they are 'wrong'.
Voters may very quickly regret voting decisions, or have buyer's remorse, but even that does not make their decision wrong. Voters may or may not understand an issue, or accept a lie about a party's intentions. But voting decisions are far more broadly based than a single issue. So even voters voting against their own interests on a single issue, knowingly or unknowingly, is still not evidence of voters being 'wrong'.
Yes, it pisses me off when people say that.
I should have clarified that when I said voters are often wrong, it is wrong in the sense that obviously parties think they are correct, so if people vote against them they have made the wrong decision. Yes, it's lazy terminology, but from a partisan point of view it makes sense, if one is the sort who characterises their opponents as being evil or other highly charged words. Since I don't characterise parties like that, I feel more confident in being smugly satisfied enough to typify those that do as seeing voters as wrong or self destructive.
I use the term BME because I can't be borthered to write Black and Ethnic minorities repeatedly, or just ethnic minorities. BME is an easier abbreviation.
People vote in their self-interest (generally) - and many groups, feel that voting Tory is not their self-interest. If the Tories are the best choice of government for this country, then surely significant demographics should not feel this way? The Tories are great for old people and middle class people. But whether they are great for this country as a whole is another debate entirely.
I am still teased by the family I stayed with on my first visit here at age 15, when I had a pair of yellow Speedos, (they break out the slides every time I visit), and they admit that then I did have the appropriate body, but know I don't now, and it doesn't bother me at all.
I am still looking for a Borat swimsuit
As for voting, people should vote for the best government for the country overall, whether or not that coincides with their own self-interest, I think the best choice for the government of this country is the Conservative Party. Therefore, I think people who are either voting for their personal interests over the national interest are wrong, and also that people who think another party is the best party for the overall national interest is wrong.
I'm happy to accept other people have reasonable and well-thought out reasons for disagreeing with me. But I still think they are mistaken. If I did not, I would change my view to agree with them!
All the women in my life would scoff at the idea, and would far rather take your approach. More power to their elbows.
I dunno, myself. It seems a pity if it's necessary - I'd rather pay a little to have a conductor stroll up and down the carriages, prepared to halt the train at a station and get help to eject any serious trouble-makers. But I can see that if some women are nervous (more nervous than the fearless Cyclefree, bristling with sharp pins and stilettos) they might not feel that's safe enough. I take MrsB's point that feeling at risk of assaulted is more serious than feeling at risk of having to hear a noisy baby or being distracted at your club.
People vary a lot in how much harassment they'll accept. I remember my wife some years ago saying she'd been wolf-whistled from a building site, and called out "You shouldn't be working on a site if you can't see properly, mate", which she said got a satisfying laugh from the other workers. But she'd certainly draw the line at being alone in a carriage with a drunken groper.
I wonder, do those people who are so fundamentally against the principle of single-sex carriages have the same problem with single-sex prisons?
http://www.bonanza.com/listings/Borat-style-Mankini-Thong-Fancy-dress-Costume-for-Stag-Party-Lover-s-Gift-Swi-/277168383?gpid=76984451581&gpkwd=&goog_pla=1&gclid=COz2odawxccCFZYWHwodzwQEhw
Minority ethnic sounds a little French ("minority ethnique", or somesuch!)
Pressure is only pressure if you react to it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02xxsb5/worlds-busiest-railway-2015-episode-1
Episode 2 (Tuesday)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0684q75/worlds-busiest-railway-2015-episode-2
Women-only passenger cars are railway or subway cars intended for women only. They are offered on some trains in Japan, India, Egypt, Iran, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates, while passengers in some other countries have demanded their introduction.
Arguably, the Tories benefited from people voting in their self-interest. The Tories are likely to take a selective approach to welfare reform, for example - dealing with those on low-incomes dependent on tax credits and other benefits, but not benefits received by the over 65s, despite the fact that much of the welfare budget is mad up of the state pensions. Other benefit expenditure is small by comparison. Real welfare reform would be not only tackling the benefits depended upon by those on low-incomes, but also dealing with the long-term issue of how unaffordable state pensions for all are becoming, in an era of an aging population. Yet the Conservatives, the party that apparently governs for all this country, won't do that. Why? It isn't that it relies on over 65s to vote for it significant numbers, is it?
I personally don't think the Tories are the best option for this country, in terms of a government. I think all the potential options are dismal, to be frank. Immigration, the number one concern this country has, hasn't a hope of being resolved by any of the big main two. The growing problem in this country - a lack of skills, and high-skill jobs in particular is hardly close to being dealt with either. If anything, the IDS culture of throwing anyone, no matter their skills into any kind of job - usually low-skill - makes the issue worse rather than better. The country has a growing housing crisis, that no one is solving too. And we are losing talent. And for all the rhetoric of debt, my generation is likely to be up to our eye-balls in it. Whether it be through tuition fees, to likely getting a mortgage (if we do) at a later age, and therefore may be unlikely to pay it off, debt will be with us from cradle to grave.
If Lisa washed it I'm sure it shrank anyway
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0687f6j/goodness-gracious-me-india-special-2015
http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/donald-trump-throws-out-univision-anchor-1201578344/
Goodnight.
May Diane Abbott bless you all with her radiant wisdom!
And he's proposed running candidates for the PCS Union. eg: Not convinced by the "not party political" bit, and I would think he has a credible sounding defence in place - quite an operator.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/voices/2012/07/mark-serwotka-why-pcs-union-could-run-its-own-candidates