politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Great speech by Boris – but it’s had no impact on Betfair

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Great speech by Boris – but it’s had no impact on Betfair

This is a story that is probably going to go on for the next 3 to 4 years. Who is going to be the successor to David Cameron and will the prize go to one of the top two favourites?

Read the full story here

perdix

Theresa will definitely be among the finalists and if the nation votes for IN she could become a standard bearer for the Brexits.

Casino_Royale

Following today's events, I'm now laying George.

Danny565

YouGov Poll on next Tory leader

TORY PARTY MEMBERS
George Osborne 33%
Boris Johnson 31%
Theresa May 17%
Don't Know/Wouldn't Vote 10%


GENERAL PUBLIC
Boris Johnson 25%
Theresa May 9%
George Osborne 9%
Don't Know/Wouldn't Vote 54%

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/sb6ms6gh7x/Conservative_Leadership_Website.pdf

Cyclefree

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

Cyclefree

I think Boris's time has gone. Don't know why - just a feeling. That with Boris it's all about him rather than the country.

Casino_Royale

Casino_Royale said:

Following today's events, I'm now laying George.

Not in the biblical sense, I hasten to add.

AndyJS

Cyclefree said:

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

Why is the word "empowering" so much used these days?

Danny565

To rehash what I said this morning:

I think Theresa May is the closest the Tories have to a "continuity Cameron" candidate. She has the same brand strengths as him: she naturally has a leader's "gravitas", she projects steady competence, she's good at atleast pretending she's doing what she thinks is best for the country rather than playing political games. Plus, although she doesn't exactly ooze charm, she doesn't come across as outright dislikeable in the way Osborne does either.

Boris is something of a risk in that he potentially throws away the Cameron strength of gravitas, but he also has strengths which Cameron doesn't: namely people who would ordinarily detest the Tories like him and will be willing to listen to him (especially youngsters).

Osborne conversely lacks many of Cameron's strengths, but doesn't bring anything to the table which Cameron doesn't: he doesn't come across as a natural leader with "gravitas", he's not likeable in the slightest, and he's very transparent at playing political games which the public just doesn't like (see Brown). Yet the Tories are apparently intent on shooting themselves in the foot by choosing him.

taffys

''They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise.''

What bemuses me is that western women are far more worried about this than they are about what goes on in Saudi Arabia.

Are any feminists picketing the Saudi embassy? The Pakistani Embassy? The Afghan embassy? No.

Meanwhile white western men are hung out to dry for increasingly minor transgressions.

Its becoming absurd.

Casino_Royale

Cyclefree said:

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

It's weird. I recognised the value of diversity through my time in the Big4 but absolutely not "Diversity".

Richard_Nabavi

Whether Osborne would find it hard to win the final ballot of members would depend on who he is up against. As things stand, I think he'd probably win against most of the top contenders, but there's plenty of time for perceptions to change or for new names to come to the fore - including two or three who, amazingly, are not on the bookies' radar at all.

Beverley_C

taffys said:

''They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise.''

What bemuses me is that western women are far more worried about this than they are about what goes on in Saudi Arabia.

..

Meanwhile white western men are hung out to dry for increasingly minor transgressions.

Whilst there may be concern about Saudi Arabia the "minor transgressions" are happening here to us.

So yes... it bl**dy well does concern us.

Casino_Royale

Danny565 said:

To rehash what I said this morning:

I think Theresa May is the closest the Tories have to a "continuity Cameron" candidate. She has the same brand strengths as him: she naturally has a leader's "gravitas", she projects steady competence, she's good at atleast pretending she's doing what she thinks is best for the country rather than playing political games. Plus, although she doesn't exactly ooze charm, she doesn't come across as outright dislikeable in the way Osborne does either.

Boris is something of a risk in that he potentially throws away the Cameron strength of gravitas, but he also has strengths which Cameron doesn't: namely people who would ordinarily detest the Tories like him and will be willing to listen to him (especially youngsters).

Osborne conversely lacks many of Cameron's strengths, but doesn't bring anything to the table which Cameron doesn't: he doesn't come across as a natural leader with "gravitas", he's not likeable in the slightest, and he's very transparent at playing political games which the public just doesn't like (see Brown). Yet the Tories are apparently intent on shooting themselves in the foot by choosing him.

She will have increased her currency today, but (a) she's dull (b) she never answers a straight question directly, and oozes 'politicianness' and, (c) no-one has forgotten how she attacked her own party at its lowest ebb.

If it weren't for all that she could be Thatcher: The Next Generation.

taffys

Why is the word "empowering" so much used these days?

Modern Western Women have far more power and choice than any women anywhere, ever. Ask any 50 something bloke who loses his job and then is turned into a grease spot by a wife who suddenly wants a divorce when the cash dries up (not me I hasten to add).

Men are, luckily, starting to notice. Marriage rates are falling through the floor because it just ain;t worth it any more.

Cyclefree

AndyJS said:

Cyclefree said:

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

Why is the word "empowering" so much used these days?

I used that word instead of the words used in the campaign to avoid identifying the lady in question.

HurstLlama

Cyclefree said:

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

Mrs Free, Interesting post. Might I suggest that reason the your proposed speaker might have the right idea is the expectations of the audience. By declaring up front her home life, including children etc., she is making a very positive statement about what women can do and that after all is what the presentation is about.

A male speaker probably would not include such information but then he probably would not be there to talk about, and hopefully inspire, women making more of themselves.

Omnium

Sometimes, and perhaps today, the arguments within a party are precisely what democracy is all about.

Labour are I think naturally an anti-democratic party - they don't think it works. Neither do I, but I still vote Tory.

taffys

Whilst there may be concern about Saudi Arabia the "minor transgressions" are happening here to us.

What you describe is not restricted to men. I've had women get over familiar with me, and I've seen it happen to other men too, on plenty of occasions.

But that's alright, because as men we're supposed to enjoy it, right? because we're such sex perverts?

Omnium

taffys said:

Why is the word "empowering" so much used these days?

Modern Western Women have far more power and choice than any women anywhere, ever. Ask any 50 something bloke who loses his job and then is turned into a grease spot by a wife who suddenly wants a divorce when the cash dries up (not me I hasten to add).

Men are, luckily, starting to notice. Marriage rates are falling through the floor because it just ain;t worth it any more.

a word with promise over delivery. I don't imagine you will ever find an Empoweree.

Cyclefree

taffys said:

''They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise.''

What bemuses me is that western women are far more worried about this than they are about what goes on in Saudi Arabia.

Are any feminists picketing the Saudi embassy? The Pakistani Embassy? The Afghan embassy? No.

Meanwhile white western men are hung out to dry for increasingly minor transgressions.

Its becoming absurd.

I am very bothered about what goes in Saudi Arabia or indeed what happens to girls here in certain minority communities - as my past posts will testify. But this was at work: I could respond - and as it happens I am doing a talk tomorrow on Values/Leadership and Diversity so it is much on my mind at the moment - so I thought it worth raising in a polite way.

(Edited: Oh and by the way the people who drafted the invite were women so this was not an anti-man thing.)

As Edmund Burke once said: "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little."

On Saudi Arabia you might want to see what happens to prominent women who do raise concerns about what goes on in that ghastly country - http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/swedens-feminist-foreign-minister-has-dared-to-tell-the-truth-about-saudi-arabia-what-happens-now-concerns-us-all/.

Richard_Nabavi

It's a bit simplistic to say that women were second-class citizens confined to specific roles in the past. Yes they were - for reasons to do with child-bearing, child-rearing, the amount of work required to maintain a home, and the nature of work. But men were equally confined to specific roles, and I'm not sure that the men always got the better deal. Quite apart from (say) the First World War, what about boys born into mining communities in the 1920s, effectively condemned to spend their lives (and probably short lives) down the pits? Or the sons of the aristocracy, effectively compelled (if they weren't the eldest) to a career in the army, the navy or the church?

Autres temps, autres moeurs. It's silly to judge them from a twenty-first century perspective.

LucyJones

Maybe I've just been lucky, but I have never felt disadvantaged by being female.

I get annoyed by so-called feminists acting as if all women are "victims". I'm not a victim. Whether I get on in life, or I don't - as I see it, it's down to me.

Cyclefree

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

It's weird. I recognised the value of diversity through my time in the Big4 but absolutely not "Diversity".

Well I agree - and my talk is precisely an attempt to unshackle true diversity from "Diversity" and why the former really matters and the latter is a dead end which flattens real variety and imposes the deadliness of taxonomy on people.

(But you will have to come to one of my talks to hear the rest!!)

HurstLlama

Cyclefree said:

But you will have to come to one of my talks to hear the rest!!)

I would like to and so, I am sure, would a chum of mine who "teaches" on women's issues. How do we get an invite?

taffys

As Edmund Burke once said: "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little."

Rubbish. The fact is that white middle class men are the softest targets going, and most women here would far rather take this easiest of routes than take on real miscreants.

AS if what you were doing would have the slightest effect whatever on FGM or muslim taxi drivers gang raping white girls.

isam

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

Cyclefree

HurstLlama said:

Cyclefree said:

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

Mrs Free, Interesting post. Might I suggest that reason the your proposed speaker might have the right idea is the expectations of the audience. By declaring up front her home life, including children etc., she is making a very positive statement about what women can do and that after all is what the presentation is about.

A male speaker probably would not include such information but then he probably would not be there to talk about, and hopefully inspire, women making more of themselves.

That might well be the case - and all of this is pretty well known - so did not need saying in any case. But the invite was not written by her but by us. There are lots of women with plenty of achievements to their name but those achievements are worthwhile in their own right and not because they have managed to do them as well as - gasp! have a husband and - double gasp!! children. Women at all levels of society work with husbands and children and it is much tougher for those without the high salaries and the ability to have high quality childcare and other support.

I don't want to overstate this - it's only a small point - but there is "unconscious bias" around and sometimes it's good to notice it and challenge it.

MTimT

taffys said:

Why is the word "empowering" so much used these days?

Modern Western Women have far more power and choice than any women anywhere, ever. Ask any 50 something bloke who loses his job and then is turned into a grease spot by a wife who suddenly wants a divorce when the cash dries up (not me I hasten to add).

Men are, luckily, starting to notice. Marriage rates are falling through the floor because it just ain;t worth it any more.

Not sure the intent behind the last sentence. In the US, it really doesn't matter if you are married or not if children are involved.

MaxPB

Conservatives polling close to a majority in Canada. Could be a second centre right surprise this year if they do it.

Cyclefree

taffys said:

Whilst there may be concern about Saudi Arabia the "minor transgressions" are happening here to us.

What you describe is not restricted to men. I've had women get over familiar with me, and I've seen it happen to other men too, on plenty of occasions.

But that's alright, because as men we're supposed to enjoy it, right? because we're such sex perverts?

No - if a woman behaves badly to you she deserves to be called out on it.

chestnut

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/10/why-theresa-may-wrong-about-immigration

Predictably stupid response in the New Statesman

“When immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society,” May says. Yet, whatever she might say, racism is on the decline. The BNP’s vote in the general election collapsed from 563,000 in 2010 to just 1,667 in 2015. Research by Rob Ford has revealed that the nation is becoming far more tolerant to marriage between races: while almost half of those born before 1950 oppose marriage between black and white people, only 14 per cent of those born since 1980 do. And between 2011 and 2014 (when the figure was last measured), the British Social Attitudes Survey reported a decrease in self-reported racial prejudice, from 38 to 30 per cent.

She talks about immigration; he talks about racism.

Casino_Royale

chestnut said:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/10/why-theresa-may-wrong-about-immigration

Predictably stupid response in the New Statesman

“When immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society,” May says. Yet, whatever she might say, racism is on the decline. The BNP’s vote in the general election collapsed from 563,000 in 2010 to just 1,667 in 2015. Research by Rob Ford has revealed that the nation is becoming far more tolerant to marriage between races: while almost half of those born before 1950 oppose marriage between black and white people, only 14 per cent of those born since 1980 do. And between 2011 and 2014 (when the figure was last measured), the British Social Attitudes Survey reported a decrease in self-reported racial prejudice, from 38 to 30 per cent.

She talks about immigration; he talks about racism.



*facepalm*

The Left really do have a tin ear for this sort of thing.

MaxPB

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

Well Dave has said he agrees with it. I agree with parts of it and the arguments over immigration have focussed on the economic aspect of it far too much.

Casino_Royale

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

It's weird. I recognised the value of diversity through my time in the Big4 but absolutely not "Diversity".

Well I agree - and my talk is precisely an attempt to unshackle true diversity from "Diversity" and why the former really matters and the latter is a dead end which flattens real variety and imposes the deadliness of taxonomy on people.

(But you will have to come to one of my talks to hear the rest!!)

PM me and send me an invite. I'd love to come.

TCPoliticalBetting

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

Which Tories are you referring to? Some posted on here at the time of the speech, and as AFAIK were generally supportive. Her expressed views fit into the mainstream views of the majority of the country.

HYUFD

MaxPB said:

Conservatives polling close to a majority in Canada. Could be a second centre right surprise this year if they do it.

Every poll in the past few days has had the Liberals moving ahead, the Tories unchanged. The further the NDP falls the more likely Trudeau is to win in contrast to Israel and the UK where it was the decline of the religious parties and UKIP vote which saved Bibi and Cameron. It would be more like Greece where Tsipras did better than expected thanks to the decline of Popular Unity. Trudeau is also charismatic like Tsipras and unlike Ed Miliband and Isaac Herzog

HurstLlama

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

I have to say from what I have read Theresa May could have saved a lot of time by saying, "On immigration, UKIP have been correct all along", but then she would have had either a very short speech or else have actually had to say what she is going to do. As it is she filled her time slot but didn't actually commit to doing anything to address the problems she identified. All the talk of tough new crackdowns really do not wash anymore - I remember Gordon Brown promising that in future any asylum seeker who broke the law would be deported.

We currently have the daft situation whereby we have 600,000 immigrants a year but businesses are complaining that immigration rules mean it is very difficult to get visa's for the highly skilled people they need. Pure madness and theresa May has no answer.

Moses_

Off topic.... Apologies ....New thread curse as well

kle4 said:
» show previous quotes
I think it wouldn't get taken literally...but the person writing it would be punished as if it was, on the basis of 'going too far'.
You have to be kidding? Where have you been for the last 20 years?

Why don't you tweet it and find out for yourself? That's not a challenge and I do not expect you to ever do it because the fall out would be horrific and the fact I warn you against that really speaks for itself. You would not do such a thing because you have decency and respect. This lady did not.

Equally are bad and should not ever be in a public domain or even considered as worth speaking ...ever.

John_M

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/10/why-theresa-may-wrong-about-immigration

Predictably stupid response in the New Statesman

“When immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society,” May says. Yet, whatever she might say, racism is on the decline. The BNP’s vote in the general election collapsed from 563,000 in 2010 to just 1,667 in 2015. Research by Rob Ford has revealed that the nation is becoming far more tolerant to marriage between races: while almost half of those born before 1950 oppose marriage between black and white people, only 14 per cent of those born since 1980 do. And between 2011 and 2014 (when the figure was last measured), the British Social Attitudes Survey reported a decrease in self-reported racial prejudice, from 38 to 30 per cent.

She talks about immigration; he talks about racism.

*facepalm*

The Left really do have a tin ear for this sort of thing.


If you don't like immigration, you're a racist. There are fewer racists, therefore more people like immigration. Typical lefty half-logic.

Cyclefree

LucyJones said:

Maybe I've just been lucky, but I have never felt disadvantaged by being female.

I get annoyed by so-called feminists acting as if all women are "victims". I'm not a victim. Whether I get on in life, or I don't - as I see it, it's down to me.

I agree. I'm not a victim. I have suffered in the past some revolting sexist abuse but learnt to deal with it so that it did not happen again.

You can accept "victim" status or you can refuse to, make it clear that the person misbehaving is at fault and make damn sure that you are taken seriously. It takes courage but it's easier the older you get not least because I'm less inclined - frankly - to put up with a load of sh*t. And I will make my views known.

I rather like the idea that MrTimT said he taught his daughters - of imagining a force field around them and that no-one could do anything to them within that force field that they did not want. My father taught me something similar.

MaxPB

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Conservatives polling close to a majority in Canada. Could be a second centre right surprise this year if they do it.

Every poll in the past few days has had the Liberals moving ahead, the Tories unchanged. The further the NDP falls the more likely Trudeau is to win in contrast to Israel and the UK where it was the decline of the religious parties and UKIP vote which saved Bibi and Cameron. It would be more like Greece where Tsipras did better than expected thanks to the decline of Popular Unity. Trudeau is also charismatic like Tsipras and unlike Ed Miliband

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/new-mainstreet-poll-shows-huge.html

I think it will be very much like here in the end. Nanos and their daily poll will play the same role as YouGov.

Cyclefree

HurstLlama said:

Cyclefree said:

But you will have to come to one of my talks to hear the rest!!)

I would like to and so, I am sure, would a chum of mine who "teaches" on women's issues. How do we get an invite?

They are not yet public. As soon as I do a public one I will let you know.

Casino_Royale

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's a bit simplistic to say that women were second-class citizens confined to specific roles in the past. Yes they were - for reasons to do with child-bearing, child-rearing, the amount of work required to maintain a home, and the nature of work. But men were equally confined to specific roles, and I'm not sure that the men always got the better deal. Quite apart from (say) the First World War, what about boys born into mining communities in the 1920s, effectively condemned to spend their lives (and probably short lives) down the pits? Or the sons of the aristocracy, effectively compelled (if they weren't the eldest) to a career in the army, the navy or the church?

Autres temps, autres moeurs. It's silly to judge them from a twenty-first century perspective.

Also, society was fairly stiflingly conformist until fairly recently.

I know this is going to sound extremely trite next to that - but as a relatively privileged, modern, middle-class example - when I was at prep school, aged eight, it was surnames only for the pupils. The cane was only banned in my private school c.1990. I was caned by a BoB spitfire pilot that very year.

When I started work, less than fifteen years ago, my line manager pulled me in for a chat because I hadn't shaved - I had one day's growth - and dress-down Friday's were fiercely debated. There were plenty of meetings I went to where you weren't expected to speak, or listened to if you did, if you were too young or junior. I had some people ask me (and I felt judge me) by whether I played rugby and what school I went to. I usually passed - I side-stepped the rugby question - but it wouldn't have occurred to some of the older staff that retired roughly when I joined to put someone female, or of colour, in front of a client either unless they were outstandingly good.

I don't necessarily think *all* change since then is positive change - not least, I always wear a tie, and like professional smartness and English fashion (yes, red trousers and tweed) - but almost all of that convention has changed.

Some call me a social conservative now. But up until the late 1990s/early 1990s I was very liberal because there was a lot still quite stuffy and a tad authoritarian in British culture and society.

Cyclefree

taffys said:

As Edmund Burke once said: "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little."

Rubbish. The fact is that white middle class men are the softest targets going, and most women here would far rather take this easiest of routes than take on real miscreants.

AS if what you were doing would have the slightest effect whatever on FGM or muslim taxi drivers gang raping white girls.

Rubbish yourself, frankly. I do not take on white middle class men. My talk is not about that at all - and nor is it particularly about "women's issues". There is good behaviour and bad behaviour.

Where I work I can do nothing about FGM. So I do what I can about the things I can do something about.

Philip_Thompson

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

To rehash what I said this morning:

I think Theresa May is the closest the Tories have to a "continuity Cameron" candidate. She has the same brand strengths as him: she naturally has a leader's "gravitas", she projects steady competence, she's good at atleast pretending she's doing what she thinks is best for the country rather than playing political games. Plus, although she doesn't exactly ooze charm, she doesn't come across as outright dislikeable in the way Osborne does either.

Boris is something of a risk in that he potentially throws away the Cameron strength of gravitas, but he also has strengths which Cameron doesn't: namely people who would ordinarily detest the Tories like him and will be willing to listen to him (especially youngsters).

Osborne conversely lacks many of Cameron's strengths, but doesn't bring anything to the table which Cameron doesn't: he doesn't come across as a natural leader with "gravitas", he's not likeable in the slightest, and he's very transparent at playing political games which the public just doesn't like (see Brown). Yet the Tories are apparently intent on shooting themselves in the foot by choosing him.

She will have increased her currency today, but (a) she's dull (b) she never answers a straight question directly, and oozes 'politicianness' and, (c) no-one has forgotten how she attacked her own party at its lowest ebb.

If it weren't for all that she could be Thatcher: The Next Generation.

She didn't attack the party at its lowest ebb she told some home truths that needed to be said. If nobody says the truth then nobody can fix the problems.

HurstLlama

Cyclefree said:

HurstLlama said:

Cyclefree said:

But you will have to come to one of my talks to hear the rest!!)

I would like to and so, I am sure, would a chum of mine who "teaches" on women's issues. How do we get an invite?

They are not yet public. As soon as I do a public one I will let you know.

Ah, go on! You could smuggle a couple of people into the back. Nobody would notice and we could easily have a credible cover plan worked out if they did.

taffys

''Where I work I can do nothing about FGM. ''

It sounds to me that where you work, you can't really do much about anything, and so like the rest of us, perhaps you should admit as much.

JEO

Cyclefree said:

LucyJones said:

Maybe I've just been lucky, but I have never felt disadvantaged by being female.

I get annoyed by so-called feminists acting as if all women are "victims". I'm not a victim. Whether I get on in life, or I don't - as I see it, it's down to me.

I agree. I'm not a victim. I have suffered in the past some revolting sexist abuse but learnt to deal with it so that it did not happen again.

You can accept "victim" status or you can refuse to, make it clear that the person misbehaving is at fault and make damn sure that you are taken seriously. It takes courage but it's easier the older you get not least because I'm less inclined - frankly - to put up with a load of sh*t. And I will make my views known.

I rather like the idea that MrTimT said he taught his daughters - of imagining a force field around them and that no-one could do anything to them within that force field that they did not want. My father taught me something similar.

Some people seem to jump towards victim status. I remember when the writer of the new Bond books said he wasn't too keen on Idris Elba as Bond, but it wasn't anything to do with colour but because the man came across as too "street", instead suggesting Adrian Lester as someone who seemed to have more of James Bond's class background. Cue a bunch of American black activists claiming that it was a veiled racist attack on Elba, ignoring the fact that Adrian Lester is also a black man.

Cyclefree

HurstLlama said:

Cyclefree said:

HurstLlama said:

Cyclefree said:

But you will have to come to one of my talks to hear the rest!!)

I would like to and so, I am sure, would a chum of mine who "teaches" on women's issues. How do we get an invite?

They are not yet public. As soon as I do a public one I will let you know.

Ah, go on! You could smuggle a couple of people into the back. Nobody would notice and we could easily have a credible cover plan worked out if they did.

Well that is true. And I'd have to smuggle in Casino Royale as well.

But my next one is at 9 am tomorrow so (a) no time; (b) I need my dinner and sleep; (c) I'd have to shoot you all afterwards or something because my cover would be blown.....Smiley Face!!!

So next time, eh??

Moses_

Cyclefree said:

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

Cyclefree

Anecdote time...

It's not , I have a daughter of the precise same opinion and she is right. We would not even think to mention that.

I am reminded of a very bad mistake I made a few years ago with a young lady that came for a job interview. She was very qualified and had some experience behind her in the scientifically technical work she had been doing previously. She was entering a pretty much 99% all male environment in shall be say isolated locations. I asked her why like others, she had not put down any outside interests on her Cv?. She challenged me does that impact on what I am applying for or if I can do my job?

Nope! She was superb and achieved finally a very senior position and had every right to do so.

I never ever asked that question again of male or female in any interview I did.

We all learn......

JEO

taffys said:

Why is the word "empowering" so much used these days?

Modern Western Women have far more power and choice than any women anywhere, ever. Ask any 50 something bloke who loses his job and then is turned into a grease spot by a wife who suddenly wants a divorce when the cash dries up (not me I hasten to add).

Men are, luckily, starting to notice. Marriage rates are falling through the floor because it just ain;t worth it any more.

I don't think any Conservative should celebrate the decline in marriage, although I agree the divorce laws took a damaging turn a generation ago. If you cheat on your partner, you are the one that has broken the marriage contract, and you should get less in the divorce. Also, you should only be compensated for the lost income you forewent by staying home to raise the children: none of this "standard of living you have to come to expect" nonsense.

And courts need to stop discriminating against men when assigning custody. They often get punished twice: they spend long hours at work to earn more for the sake of their families, and then when the divorce happens that is used against them so they see their children even less, but they still have to give up more of the money.

JosiasJessop

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's a bit simplistic to say that women were second-class citizens confined to specific roles in the past. Yes they were - for reasons to do with child-bearing, child-rearing, the amount of work required to maintain a home, and the nature of work. But men were equally confined to specific roles, and I'm not sure that the men always got the better deal. Quite apart from (say) the First World War, what about boys born into mining communities in the 1920s, effectively condemned to spend their lives (and probably short lives) down the pits? Or the sons of the aristocracy, effectively compelled (if they weren't the eldest) to a career in the army, the navy or the church?

Autres temps, autres moeurs. It's silly to judge them from a twenty-first century perspective.

That's a good point. Whilst the majority of people have been pleasant about my decision, I've had a few barbed comments about my decision to become, for the moment at least, a stay-at-home father / house-husband.

Apparently it isn't the 'done' thing for a man, especially one who was earning reasonably well.

Yet for us it was the obvious and logical thing to do.

Both men and women have to try to fit into the roles expected of them. These strict and sometimes nonsensical restrictions are being broken down for both sexes. This is mostly positive, although there can be downsides.

Personally I feel happier taking my toddler to a playgroup than I ever would chanting at some overpaid idiots on the football field.

Beverley_C

taffys said:

But that's alright, because as men we're supposed to enjoy it, right? because we're such sex perverts?

Your words, not mine.

I like men. Well, most men. Well... some of them.....

HYUFD

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Conservatives polling close to a majority in Canada. Could be a second centre right surprise this year if they do it.

Every poll in the past few days has had the Liberals moving ahead, the Tories unchanged. The further the NDP falls the more likely Trudeau is to win in contrast to Israel and the UK where it was the decline of the religious parties and UKIP vote which saved Bibi and Cameron. It would be more like Greece where Tsipras did better than expected thanks to the decline of Popular Unity. Trudeau is also charismatic like Tsipras and unlike Ed Miliband

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/new-mainstreet-poll-shows-huge.html

I think it will be very much like here in the end. Nanos and their daily poll will play the same role as YouGov.

Even yougov had it tied and Nanos has the Liberals clearly ahead on 35%. The only poll with the Tories clearly ahead is main street research which was conducted before the last debate Trudeau won and which leans right anyway. The mood in Canada seems to be for change after about a decade of the Tories and Trudeau is far more charismatic than Ed Miliband or Isaac Herzog. The question is more whether there is a Liberal or NOD deal it seems to me a late shift NOD to Liberal is also likely Harper has no votes to squeeze unlike Cameron who could squeeze UKIP and the LDs and Netanyahu who could squeeze the religious parties

Cyclefree

taffys said:

''Where I work I can do nothing about FGM. ''

It sounds to me that where you work, you can't really do much about anything, and so like the rest of us, perhaps you should admit as much.

Actually, I can do something - and do - about some of the fraudsters and other ne'er do wells in the City and a number of people have served or are serving time in prison as a result of my - amongst many others - efforts. Others have lost their jobs and are therefore not available to inflict their incompetence and worse on others.

It's not much - whatever your definition of "much" is. But it's not nothing.

JEO

John_M said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/10/why-theresa-may-wrong-about-immigration

Predictably stupid response in the New Statesman

“When immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society,” May says. Yet, whatever she might say, racism is on the decline. The BNP’s vote in the general election collapsed from 563,000 in 2010 to just 1,667 in 2015. Research by Rob Ford has revealed that the nation is becoming far more tolerant to marriage between races: while almost half of those born before 1950 oppose marriage between black and white people, only 14 per cent of those born since 1980 do. And between 2011 and 2014 (when the figure was last measured), the British Social Attitudes Survey reported a decrease in self-reported racial prejudice, from 38 to 30 per cent.

She talks about immigration; he talks about racism.

*facepalm*

The Left really do have a tin ear for this sort of thing.

If you don't like immigration, you're a racist. There are fewer racists, therefore more people like immigration. Typical lefty half-logic.

And of course, it is not white people that have the most resistance to marrying outside their group. But the left won't criticise non-white people.

Philip_Thompson

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

May's speech was not UKIP, it was considered and central. Balancing fairness and control, openness and restrictions.

Personally I don't agree as I believe in more openness but no party leader has ever been more open than that and May's speech IMO is entirely consistent with Dave saying he wants net migration in the tens of thousands.

It is not consistent with the racist one-trick-pony that the arsehole Farage has become.

EPG

Not sure if either the Conservative Party or the people will favour the guy who makes that "hooker" joke... Clever, but not very Premier.

flightpath01

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

What silence. The Tories have had a low immigration target, so that shows what their opinion and ambition is, but they have not met it.
As it is that target looks increasingly difficult given the growth in our economy compared to others. As it happens it looks as if EU judges have backed the govts position re benefits tourism. Also the govt action on reducing benefits is aimed at getting more native Brits into work instead of being cast aside as otherwise unemployable.

JEO

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

I definitely agree with her in the analysis of immigration. I disagree with her measures: she isn't doing enough to actually get immigration down to any where near target.

taffys

Apparently it isn't the 'done' thing for a man, especially one who was earning reasonably well.

Here's the question. How many of those saying it isn;t the done thing are blokes? and how many women?

Philip_Thompson

JEO said:

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

I definitely agree with her in the analysis of immigration. I disagree with her measures: she isn't doing enough to actually get immigration down to any where near target.

If you and I can both agree with her analysis but not quite on the measures then it sounds like she really is quite balanced and central

isam

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

May's speech was not UKIP, it was considered and central. Balancing fairness and control, openness and restrictions.

Personally I don't agree as I believe in more openness but no party leader has ever been more open than that and May's speech IMO is entirely consistent with Dave saying he wants net migration in the tens of thousands.

It is not consistent with the racist one-trick-pony that the arsehole Farage has become.

Ooh!

MaxPB

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Conservatives polling close to a majority in Canada. Could be a second centre right surprise this year if they do it.

Every poll in the past few days has had the Liberals moving ahead, the Tories unchanged. The further the NDP falls the more likely Trudeau is to win in contrast to Israel and the UK where it was the decline of the religious parties and UKIP vote which saved Bibi and Cameron. It would be more like Greece where Tsipras did better than expected thanks to the decline of Popular Unity. Trudeau is also charismatic like Tsipras and unlike Ed Miliband

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/new-mainstreet-poll-shows-huge.html

I think it will be very much like here in the end. Nanos and their daily poll will play the same role as YouGov.

Even yougov had it tied and Nanos has the Liberals clearly ahead on 35%. The only poll with the Tories clearly ahead is main street research which was conducted before the last debate Trudeau won and which leans right anyway. The mood in Canada seems to be for change after about a decade of the Tories and Trudeau is far more charismatic than Ed Miliband or Isaac Herzog. The question is more whether there is a Liberal or NOD deal it seems to me a late shift NOD to Liberal is also likely Harper has no votes to squeeze unlike Cameron who could squeeze UKIP and the LDs and Netanyahu who could squeeze the religious parties

I'm not so sure, my gut feeling says that those who want change are just shouting louder than those who don't. Modern elections will have leftist voices and opinions amplified by social media, polling companies haven't adjusted their models for it yet as we saw in May.

TheKrakenAwakes

To all you Tory numpties on here who said no one cared about tax credit cuts - how wrong you were!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/sun-tory-tax-credit-cuts-wrong-osborne-conference

Cyclefree

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's a bit simplistic to say that women were second-class citizens confined to specific roles in the past. Yes they were - for reasons to do with child-bearing, child-rearing, the amount of work required to maintain a home, and the nature of work. But men were equally confined to specific roles, and I'm not sure that the men always got the better deal. Quite apart from (say) the First World War, what about boys born into mining communities in the 1920s, effectively condemned to spend their lives (and probably short lives) down the pits? Or the sons of the aristocracy, effectively compelled (if they weren't the eldest) to a career in the army, the navy or the church?

Autres temps, autres moeurs. It's silly to judge them from a twenty-first century perspective.

That's a good point. Whilst the majority of people have been pleasant about my decision, I've had a few barbed comments about my decision to become, for the moment at least, a stay-at-home father / house-husband.

Apparently it isn't the 'done' thing for a man, especially one who was earning reasonably well.

Yet for us it was the obvious and logical thing to do.

Both men and women have to try to fit into the roles expected of them. These strict and sometimes nonsensical restrictions are being broken down for both sexes. This is mostly positive, although there can be downsides.

Personally I feel happier taking my toddler to a playgroup than I ever would chanting at some overpaid idiots on the football field.

My husband was a stay at home father for a while. It worked for us too. And he didn't care two hoots what others thought. I think that as a family you have to work out what's best for you and accept that it may change at different stages.

We always had a rule that one of us was always there in the evening / for school events / if the tother was travelling and that weekends were absolutely sacred. When the children were younger I never went to social events in the evening because I felt that I wanted time for my family and that work got enough out of me as it was.

But whatever choice you make don't let others make you feel guilty about it.

taffys

''they spend long hours at work to earn more for the sake of their families, and then when the divorce happens that is used against them so they see their children even less, but they still have to give up more of the money.''

And of course the woman is free to take up with chr8st knows who and have him in the marital home.

isam

flightpath01 said:

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

What silence. The Tories have had a low immigration target, so that shows what their opinion and ambition is, but they have not met it.
As it is that target looks increasingly difficult given the growth in our economy compared to others. As it happens it looks as if EU judges have backed the govts position re benefits tourism. Also the govt action on reducing benefits is aimed at getting more native Brits into work instead of being cast aside as otherwise unemployable.

I suppose if a labour politician said the same thing after 5 years in the job and record net immigration you'd be saying the same... Oh the idiocy!

Beverley_C

Cyclefree said:

But whatever choice you make don't let others make you feel guilty about it.

That very wise lady Elanor Roosevelt once said: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"

HYUFD

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Conservatives polling close to a majority in Canada. Could be a second centre right surprise this year if they do it.

Every Miliband

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/new-mainstreet-poll-shows-huge.html

I think it will be very much like here in the end. Nanos and their daily poll will play the same role as YouGov.

Even yougov had it tied and Nanos has the Liberals clearly ahead on 35%. The only poll with the Tories clearly ahead is main street research which was conducted before the last debate Trudeau won and which leans right anyway. The mood in Canada seems to be for change after about a decade of the Tories and Trudeau is far more charismatic than Ed Miliband or Isaac Herzog. The question is more whether there is a Liberal or NOD deal it seems to me a late shift NOD to Liberal is also likely Harper has no votes to squeeze unlike Cameron who could squeeze UKIP and the LDs and Netanyahu who could squeeze the religious parties

I'm not so sure, my gut feeling says that those who want change are just shouting louder than those who don't. Modern elections will have leftist voices and opinions amplified by social media, polling companies haven't adjusted their models for it yet as we saw in May.

In Greece Tsipras did better than the final polls as did Obama in 2012, both were charismatic like Trudeau. In 2011 the final Nanos poll had the Tories on 37% the NDP on 31% the Liberals on 21%. The Tories got 39% the NDP 30% the Liberals 18% so they were pretty accurate

Cyclefree

Beverley_C said:

Cyclefree said:

But whatever choice you make don't let others make you feel guilty about it.

That very wise lady Elanor Roosevelt once said: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"

Or indeed a victim.

isam

Who said this?

"It's hard to know where to start with Theresa May's awful, ugly, misleading, cynical and irresponsible speech to the Conservative Party conference today.
If you haven't seen reports of it, allow me to summarise: "Immigrants are stealing your job, making you poorer and ruining your country. Never mind the facts, just feel angry at foreigners. And make me Conservative leader." "

MaxPB

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Conservatives polling close to a majority in Canada. Could be a second centre right surprise this year if they do it.

Every poll in the past few days has had the Liberals moving ahead, the Tories unchanged. The further the NDP falls the more likely Trudeau is to win in contrast to Israel and the UK where it was the decline of the religious parties and UKIP vote which saved Bibi and Cameron. It would be more like Greece where Tsipras did better than expected thanks to the decline of Popular Unity. Trudeau is also charismatic like Tsipras and unlike Ed Miliband

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/new-mainstreet-poll-shows-huge.html

I think it will be very much like here in the end. Nanos and their daily poll will play the same role as YouGov.

Even yougov had it tied and Nanos has the Liberals clearly ahead on 35%. The only poll with the Tories clearly ahead is main street research which was conducted before the last debate Trudeau won and which leans right anyway. The mood in Canada seems to be for change after about a decade of the Tories and Trudeau is far more charismatic than Ed Miliband or Isaac Herzog. The question is more whether there is a Liberal or NOD deal it seems to me a late shift NOD to Liberal is also likely Harper has no votes to squeeze unlike Cameron who could squeeze UKIP and the LDs and Netanyahu who could squeeze the religious parties

I'm not so sure, my gut feeling says that those who want change are just shouting louder than those who don't. Modern elections will have leftist voices and opinions amplified by social media, polling companies haven't adjusted their models for it yet as we saw in May.

In Greece Syriza did better than the final polls as did Obama in 2012, both were charismatic like Trudeau. In 2011 the final Nanos poll had the Tories on 37% the NDP on 31% the Liberals on 21%. The Tories got 39% the NDP 30% the Liberals 18% so they were pretty accurate

The explosion of social media and political activism of the left on it has been massive since 2010/11. It's just a feeling anyway and my trust in polling has been shaken since May.

Philip_Thompson

Moses_ said:

Cyclefree said:

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

Cyclefree

Anecdote time...

It's not , I have a daughter of the precise same opinion and she is right. We would not even think to mention that.

I am reminded of a very bad mistake I made a few years ago with a young lady that came for a job interview. She was very qualified and had some experience behind her in the scientifically technical work she had been doing previously. She was entering a pretty much 99% all male environment in shall be say isolated locations. I asked her why like others, she had not put down any outside interests on her Cv?. She challenged me does that impact on what I am applying for or if I can do my job?

Nope! She was superb and achieved finally a very senior position and had every right to do so.

I never ever asked that question again of male or female in any interview I did.

We all learn......

It depends upon the position you're hiring for and level of experience your applicants have. I have found for school leavers etc especially that outside interests can demonstrate qualities like Leadership, Teamwork, Creativity etc and are a part of the puzzle of trying to find the best candidates.

Not everything by any means buy not worthless either.

JosiasJessop

taffys said:

Apparently it isn't the 'done' thing for a man, especially one who was earning reasonably well.

Here's the question. How many of those saying it isn;t the done thing are blokes? and how many women?

From memory I've had three comments, all from men. One was concerned about how my career might be harmed - which is fine with me, as I don't particularly want to go back into this industry if I can help it. The other two were more dismissive about the choice, although no-one was out-and-out rude, or even, I think, meant to be rude.

Having said that, most of my long-term friends are well used to me making 'odd' decisions in my life, particularly wrt what might be referred to as my 'career', which I only stumbled into.

However, whilst most of the mothers have been very welcoming, I do detect a certain stand-offishness in one or two. Nothing verbal, and no comments - just a reluctance to admit me into a couple of small circles. This has only occurred after our baby's become a toddler, as if the cuteness of a baby breaks through any such reluctance. Than again, some have gone out of their way to include me.

Reverting to stereotyping, that seems to be a difference between the sexes - the men who think it is odd say something but do nothing, the women who think it is odd say nothing and do something,

So from my experience, it works both ways. If women want the conventions broken down, they should not erect barriers to men who also break other conventions.

flightpath01

isam said:

flightpath01 said:

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

What silence. The Tories have had a low immigration target, so that shows what their opinion and ambition is, but they have not met it.
As it is that target looks increasingly difficult given the growth in our economy compared to others. As it happens it looks as if EU judges have backed the govts position re benefits tourism. Also the govt action on reducing benefits is aimed at getting more native Brits into work instead of being cast aside as otherwise unemployable.

I suppose if a labour politician said the same thing after 5 years in the job and record net immigration you'd be saying the same... Oh the idiocy!

The Tories have failed in their immigration target. One of the reasons is the success of the economy. Another is the student numbers. They are right to say it is too high still.

TheKrakenAwakes

isam said:

Who said this?

"It's hard to know where to start with Theresa May's awful, ugly, misleading, cynical and irresponsible speech to the Conservative Party conference today.
If you haven't seen reports of it, allow me to summarise: "Immigrants are stealing your job, making you poorer and ruining your country. Never mind the facts, just feel angry at foreigners. And make me Conservative leader." "

james Kirkup - The Telegraph

Pulpstar

Have watched Zac and Boris' speeches.

Thought Zac was alot better personally.

Boris' just went on and on and.....

Sean_F

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Who said this?

"It's hard to know where to start with Theresa May's awful, ugly, misleading, cynical and irresponsible speech to the Conservative Party conference today.
If you haven't seen reports of it, allow me to summarise: "Immigrants are stealing your job, making you poorer and ruining your country. Never mind the facts, just feel angry at foreigners. And make me Conservative leader." "

james Kirkup - The Telegraph

Immigration is the coming fault line on the centre-right, I think. i'd have quite a lot of time for Theresa May, if I thought she wasn't playing to the gallery.

felix

TheKrakenAwakes said:

To all you Tory numpties on here who said no one cared about tax credit cuts - how wrong you were!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/sun-tory-tax-credit-cuts-wrong-osborne-conference

Loving the new found love between lefties and the Sun .. something just tells me it won't end well

HYUFD

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Conservatives polling close to a majority in Canada. Could be a second centre right surprise this year if they do it.

Every poll in the past few days has had the Liberals moving ahead, the Tories unchanged. The further the NDP falls the more likely Trudeau is to win in contrast to Israel and the UK where it was the decline of the religious parties and UKIP vote which saved Bibi and Cameron. It would be more like Greece where Tsipras did better than expected thanks to the decline of Popular Unity. Trudeau is also charismatic like Tsipras and unlike Ed Miliband

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/new-mainstreet-poll-shows-huge.html

I think it will be very much like here in the end. Nanos and their daily poll will play the same role as YouGov.

Even yougov had it tied and Nanos has the Liberals clearly ahead on 35%. The only poll with the Tories clearly ahead is main street research which was conducted before the last debate Trudeau won and which leans right anyway. The mood in Canada seems to be for change after about a decade of the Tories and Trudeau is far more charismatic than Ed Miliband or Isaac Herzog. The question is more whether there is a Liberal or NOD deal it seems to me a late shift NOD to Liberal is also likely Harper has no votes to squeeze unlike Cameron who could squeeze UKIP and the LDs and Netanyahu who could squeeze the religious parties

I'm not so sure, my gut feeling says that those who want change are just shouting louder than those who don't. Modern elections will have leftist voices and opinions amplified by social media, polling companies haven't adjusted their models for it yet as we saw in May.

In Greece Syriza did better than the final polls as did Obama in 2012, both were charismatic like Trudeau. In 2011 the final Nanos poll had the Tories on 37% the NDP on 31% the Liberals on 21%. The Tories got 39% the NDP 30% the Liberals 18% so they were pretty accurate

The explosion of social media and political activism of the left on it has been massive since 2010/11. It's just a feeling anyway and my trust in polling has been shaken since May.

Greece was September. Obama won in 2011. Yougov's final indyref poll was a clear no. In Israel and the UK charismatic centre right leaders beat dull centre left leaders with a late swing. In Canada the centre right leader is dull the centre left leader charismatic

foxinsoxuk

Cyclefree said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's a bit simplistic to say that women were second-class citizens confined to specific roles in the past. Yes they were - for reasons to do with child-bearing, child-rearing, the amount of work required to maintain a home, and the nature of work. But men were equally confined to specific roles, and I'm not sure that the men always got the better deal. Quite apart from (say) the First World War, what about boys born into mining communities in the 1920s, effectively condemned to spend their lives (and probably short lives) down the pits? Or the sons of the aristocracy, effectively compelled (if they weren't the eldest) to a career in the army, the navy or the church?

Autres temps, autres moeurs. It's silly to judge them from a twenty-first century perspective.

That's a good point. Whilst the majority of people have been pleasant about my decision, I've had a few barbed comments about my decision to become, for the moment at least, a stay-at-home father /

Both men and women have to try to fit into the roles expected of them. These strict and sometimes nonsensical restrictions are being broken down for both sexes. This is mostly positive, although there can be downsides.

Personally I feel happier taking my toddler to a playgroup than I ever would chanting at some overpaid idiots on the football field.

My husband was a stay at home father for a while. It worked for us too. And he didn't care two hoots what others thought. I think that as a family you have to work out what's best for you and accept that it may change at different stages.

We always had a rule that one of us was always there in the evening / for school events / if the tother was travelling and that weekends were absolutely sacred. When the children were younger I never went to social events in the evening because I felt that I wanted time for my family and that work got enough out of me as it was.

But whatever choice you make don't let others make you feel guilty about it.

Weekends are not sacred, nor are evenings, and will be even less so if Daves poxy plans for 7 day NHS services go forward. With a wife who also works shifts it was a bit tricky when Fox jr was a nipper. My wife used to work Saturdays and Sundays when I was not on call, so while we were ships in the night Fox jr and I would have the weekend chores to do. I didn't mind, indeed it brought us closer. It didn't do him any harm to see that Dads had to do the groceries, vacuming and cooking. Its not all gardening, beer and football.

I work in a mostly female workplace but have never encountered the sexism that Cyclefree and Bev C seem to have. I do not think it just that I didn't notice, but the public sector can be more PC than the private sector.

Cyclefree

JosiasJessop said:

taffys said:

Apparently it isn't the 'done' thing for a man, especially one who was earning reasonably well.

Here's the question. How many of those saying it isn;t the done thing are blokes? and how many women?

From memory I've had three comments, all from men. One was concerned about how my career might be harmed - which is fine with me, as I don't particularly want to go back into this industry if I can help it. The other two were more dismissive about the choice, although no-one was out-and-out rude, or even, I think, meant to be rude.

Having said that, most of my long-term friends are well used to me making 'odd' decisions in my life, particularly wrt what might be referred to as my 'career', which I only stumbled into.

However, whilst most of the mothers have been very welcoming, I do detect a certain stand-offishness in one or two. Nothing verbal, and no comments - just a reluctance to admit me into a couple of small circles. This has only occurred after our baby's become a toddler, as if the cuteness of a baby breaks through any such reluctance. Than again, some have gone out of their way to include me.

Reverting to stereotyping, that seems to be a difference between the sexes - the men who think it is odd say something but do nothing, the women who think it is odd say nothing and do something,

So from my experience, it works both ways. If women want the conventions broken down, they should not erect barriers to men who also break other conventions.

Your last point is a very good one. Some of the stay-at-home mothers at my childrens' schools could be a bit stand-offish to those of us who worked - and would always organise events for 11 am in the week and be a bit sniffy when I pointed out that I was ...er .... working then. My husband, on the other hand, would rather have stuck pins in his eyes than hang around with such women and would, the moment the children were in school, disappear off on long country and somewhat boozy walks with his mates, only just making it back to collect the children looking like - well like someone does after a few hours in the country and the pub.

Danny565

Sean_F said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Who said this?

"It's hard to know where to start with Theresa May's awful, ugly, misleading, cynical and irresponsible speech to the Conservative Party conference today.
If you haven't seen reports of it, allow me to summarise: "Immigrants are stealing your job, making you poorer and ruining your country. Never mind the facts, just feel angry at foreigners. And make me Conservative leader." "

james Kirkup - The Telegraph

Immigration is the coming fault line on the centre-right, I think.

Between social conservatives, and the laissez-faire business-esque wing.

I suspect that in terms of Conservative voters, there are a lot more of the former than the latter.

JosiasJessop

I should add to my previous post:

it should also be said that I've had other men say "lucky git!" to me. I'm not sure many women who stay at home realise that their partners miss their children whilst they are out working.

Many (most?) fathers desperately miss their children.

TheKrakenAwakes

felix said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

To all you Tory numpties on here who said no one cared about tax credit cuts - how wrong you were!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/sun-tory-tax-credit-cuts-wrong-osborne-conference

Loving the new found love between lefties and the Sun .. something just tells me it won't end well

It's a cross party issue now ...you righties were all wrongies on this weren't you?

JEO

Sean_F said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Who said this?

"It's hard to know where to start with Theresa May's awful, ugly, misleading, cynical and irresponsible speech to the Conservative Party conference today.
If you haven't seen reports of it, allow me to summarise: "Immigrants are stealing your job, making you poorer and ruining your country. Never mind the facts, just feel angry at foreigners. And make me Conservative leader." "

james Kirkup - The Telegraph

Immigration is the coming fault line on the centre-right, I think.

Kirkup's article was the sort of classic left-wing virtue signalling on this issue. He is incapable of seeing the difference between criticising immigration and criticising immigrants. Nothing in May's speech encouraged anger at foreigners. This faux outrage is merely a distraction tactic from those who would rather discuss words that people use rather than the underlying issue, because they have lost the argument on the underlying issue.

taffys

''If women want the conventions broken down, they should not erect barriers to men who also break other conventions.''

I always think its funny how women want an ever wider range of opportunities, and at the same time a vast store of eligible men with good careers to marry, because women simply don;t date down.

Where are all the good men???.....er.....you took their jobs.

flightpath01

felix said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

To all you Tory numpties on here who said no one cared about tax credit cuts - how wrong you were!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/sun-tory-tax-credit-cuts-wrong-osborne-conference

Loving the new found love between lefties and the Sun .. something just tells me it won't end well

It's also possibly that people do not realalise that the billions quoted are spread over 5 years.

Cyclefree

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

.

That's a good point. Whilst the majority of people have been pleasant about my decision, I've had a few barbed comments about my decision to become, for the moment at least, a stay-at-home father /

Both men and women have to try to fit into the roles expected of them. These strict and sometimes nonsensical restrictions are being broken down for both sexes. This is mostly positive, although there can be downsides.

Personally I feel happier taking my toddler to a playgroup than I ever would chanting at some overpaid idiots on the football field.

My husband was a stay at home father for a while. It worked for us too. And he didn't care two hoots what others thought. I think that as a family you have to work out what's best for you and accept that it may change at different stages.

We always had a rule that one of us was always there in the evening / for school events / if the tother was travelling and that weekends were absolutely sacred. When the children were younger I never went to social events in the evening because I felt that I wanted time for my family and that work got enough out of me as it was.

But whatever choice you make don't let others make you feel guilty about it.

Weekends are not sacred, nor are evenings, and will be even less so if Daves poxy plans for 7 day NHS services go forward. With a wife who also works shifts it was a bit tricky when Fox jr was a nipper. My wife used to work Saturdays and Sundays when I was not on call, so while we were ships in the night Fox jr and I would have the weekend chores to do. I didn't mind, indeed it brought us closer. It didn't do him any harm to see that Dads had to do the groceries, vacuming and cooking. Its not all gardening, beer and football.

I work in a mostly female workplace but have never encountered the sexism that Cyclefree and Bev C seem to have. I do not think it just that I didn't notice, but the public sector can be more PC than the private sector.

The City and the law - particularly over the time I've been in both - have never been particulary female friendly. They are both changing, the latter in particular. I have always been a minority but then being the exception or the outsider can be an advantage in my line of work.

You can turn what some might see as a weakness into a strength.

MP_SE

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Is the silence from the Tories Mays UKIP speech because they disagree with her or they don't want to agree then have to u turn when Dave or George disown it?

May's speech was not UKIP, it was considered and central. Balancing fairness and control, openness and restrictions.

Personally I don't agree as I believe in more openness but no party leader has ever been more open than that and May's speech IMO is entirely consistent with Dave saying he wants net migration in the tens of thousands.

It is not consistent with the racist one-trick-pony that the arsehole Farage has become.

What has he said that is racist?

Moses_

Philip_Thompson said:

Moses_ said:

Cyclefree said:

The curse of the new thread .....

FPT:-

At my place of work we have just invited a prominent woman to come and speak about a campaign she is running about empowering women and, particularly, girls. The introduction to her talks mentions in this order: (1) her name; (2) where she works; (3) the number of her children; (4) whom she is married to; and (5) last the campaign she has set up and the reason why she has been invited.

I raised an objection to this on the basis that a male invitee would as likely as not have no details about his children or partner, would not put the main achievement and the main reason for the invitation last and because it somehow implies that people without children may not also have other caring responsibilities.

They've agreed to look at this again. It's a small thing I realise. And where I work does try quite hard to take sensible steps on Diversity and make practical suggestions / provide practical help rather than just talk about it. But still it grates a bit that lazy assumptions like this are still being made.

Cyclefree

Anecdote time...

It's not , I have a daughter of the precise same opinion and she is right. We would not even think to mention that.

I am reminded of a very bad mistake I made a few years ago with a young lady that came for a job interview. She was very qualified and had some experience behind her in the scientifically technical work she had been doing previously. She was entering a pretty much 99% all male environment in shall be say isolated locations. I asked her why like others, she had not put down any outside interests on her Cv?. She challenged me does that impact on what I am applying for or if I can do my job?

Nope! She was superb and achieved finally a very senior position and had every right to do so.

I never ever asked that question again of male or female in any interview I did.

We all learn......

It depends upon the position you're hiring for and level of experience your applicants have. I have found for school leavers etc especially that outside interests can demonstrate qualities like Leadership, Teamwork, Creativity etc and are a part of the puzzle of trying to find the best candidates.

Not everything by any means buy not worthless either.

It was one of those questions at the end. Her qualifications, experience and her professional attitude had already resolved the decision before I asked.

JosiasJessop

Cyclefree said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's a bit simplistic to say that women were second-class citizens confined to specific roles in the past. Yes they were - for reasons to do with child-bearing, child-rearing, the amount of work required to maintain a home, and the nature of work. But men were equally confined to specific roles, and I'm not sure that the men always got the better deal. Quite apart from (say) the First World War, what about boys born into mining communities in the 1920s, effectively condemned to spend their lives (and probably short lives) down the pits? Or the sons of the aristocracy, effectively compelled (if they weren't the eldest) to a career in the army, the navy or the church?

Autres temps, autres moeurs. It's silly to judge them from a twenty-first century perspective.

That's a good point. Whilst the majority of people have been pleasant about my decision, I've had a few barbed comments about my decision to become, for the moment at least, a stay-at-home father / house-husband.

Apparently it isn't the 'done' thing for a man, especially one who was earning reasonably well.

Yet for us it was the obvious and logical thing to do.

Both men and women have to try to fit into the roles expected of them. These strict and sometimes nonsensical restrictions are being broken down for both sexes. This is mostly positive, although there can be downsides.

Personally I feel happier taking my toddler to a playgroup than I ever would chanting at some overpaid idiots on the football field.

My husband was a stay at home father for a while. It worked for us too. And he didn't care two hoots what others thought. I think that as a family you have to work out what's best for you and accept that it may change at different stages.

We always had a rule that one of us was always there in the evening / for school events / if the tother was travelling and that weekends were absolutely sacred. When the children were younger I never went to social events in the evening because I felt that I wanted time for my family and that work got enough out of me as it was.

But whatever choice you make don't let others make you feel guilty about it.

I don't feel guilty about it. It's the right decision for us, and if other people think it's odd, then it's their problem, not ours.

I'm quite proud of the fact that some friends of ours, with a son just a month younger than ours, have recently made a similar decision. Now their son's a year old, he's chucked in his job to become full-time carer, and she's gone back to work four days a week. Apparently my example was instrumental in this.

Sean_F

Danny565 said:

Sean_F said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Who said this?

"It's hard to know where to start with Theresa May's awful, ugly, misleading, cynical and irresponsible speech to the Conservative Party conference today.
If you haven't seen reports of it, allow me to summarise: "Immigrants are stealing your job, making you poorer and ruining your country. Never mind the facts, just feel angry at foreigners. And make me Conservative leader." "

james Kirkup - The Telegraph

Immigration is the coming fault line on the centre-right, I think.

Between social conservatives, and the laissez-faire business-esque wing.

I suspect that in terms of Conservative voters, there are a lot more of the former than the latter.

So do I. I think the former realise that the latter are just as ready to screw them over as they are everyone else.

JEO

I see the Goldsmith student union previously refused to pass a motion condemning the Holocaust, as doing so would be "colonialist":

http://thetab.com/2014/10/15/now-vile-su-refuse-to-commemorate-holocaust-because-its-eurocentric-and-colonialist-22243

And this after refusing to condemn ISIS, as that would be "Islamophobic".

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Who said this?

"It's hard to know where to start with Theresa May's awful, ugly, misleading, cynical and irresponsible speech to the Conservative Party conference today.
If you haven't seen reports of it, allow me to summarise: "Immigrants are stealing your job, making you poorer and ruining your country. Never mind the facts, just feel angry at foreigners. And make me Conservative leader." "

james Kirkup - The Telegraph

Immigration is the coming fault line on the centre-right, I think. i'd have quite a lot of time for Theresa May, if I thought she wasn't playing to the gallery.

Absolutely. I've noticed a eurosceptic hardening, but a metropolitan softening on immigration within the Conservative Party.

Moses_

What is immigration...

is it someone that comes with experience for a number of years, works for a professional company, uses their skills and experience to benefit the British economy and build a future

Or is it someone that evades capture at the border turns up at a service station north of Dover and then claims asylum then lives here forever on the tax payer?

Casino_Royale

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

To rehash what I said this morning:

I think Theresa May is the closest the Tories have to a "continuity Cameron" candidate. She has the same brand strengths as him: she naturally has a leader's "gravitas", she projects steady competence, she's good at atleast pretending she's doing what she thinks is best for the country rather than playing political games. Plus, although she doesn't exactly ooze charm, she doesn't come across as outright dislikeable in the way Osborne does either.

Boris is something of a risk in that he potentially throws away the Cameron strength of gravitas, but he also has strengths which Cameron doesn't: namely people who would ordinarily detest the Tories like him and will be willing to listen to him (especially youngsters).

Osborne conversely lacks many of Cameron's strengths, but doesn't bring anything to the table which Cameron doesn't: he doesn't come across as a natural leader with "gravitas", he's not likeable in the slightest, and he's very transparent at playing political games which the public just doesn't like (see Brown). Yet the Tories are apparently intent on shooting themselves in the foot by choosing him.

She will have increased her currency today, but (a) she's dull (b) she never answers a straight question directly, and oozes 'politicianness' and, (c) no-one has forgotten how she attacked her own party at its lowest ebb.

If it weren't for all that she could be Thatcher: The Next Generation.

She didn't attack the party at its lowest ebb she told some home truths that needed to be said. If nobody says the truth then nobody can fix the problems.

No, she gave a name to the branding problem the Conservatives had that will forever be hung around our necks by our enemies (to quote a friend)

There were ways to get that message across to the party faithful: that was absolutely not it.

She lost me the moment she said it.

MyBurningEars

JosiasJessop said:

Cyclefree said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's a bit simplistic to say that women were second-class citizens confined to specific roles in the past. Yes they were - for reasons to do with child-bearing, child-rearing, the amount of work required to maintain a home, and the nature of work. But men were equally confined to specific roles, and I'm not sure that the men always got the better deal. Quite apart from (say) the First World War, what about boys born into mining communities in the 1920s, effectively condemned to spend their lives (and probably short lives) down the pits? Or the sons of the aristocracy, effectively compelled (if they weren't the eldest) to a career in the army, the navy or the church?

Autres temps, autres moeurs. It's silly to judge them from a twenty-first century perspective.

That's a good point. Whilst the majority of people have been pleasant about my decision, I've had a few barbed comments about my decision to become, for the moment at least, a stay-at-home father / house-husband.

Apparently it isn't the 'done' thing for a man, especially one who was earning reasonably well.

Yet for us it was the obvious and logical thing to do.

Both men and women have to try to fit into the roles expected of them. These strict and sometimes nonsensical restrictions are being broken down for both sexes. This is mostly positive, although there can be downsides.

Personally I feel happier taking my toddler to a playgroup than I ever would chanting at some overpaid idiots on the football field.

My husband was a stay at home father for a while. It worked for us too. And he didn't care two hoots what others thought. I think that as a family you have to work out what's best for you and accept that it may change at different stages.

We always had a rule that one of us was always there in the evening / for school events / if the tother was travelling and that weekends were absolutely sacred. When the children were younger I never went to social events in the evening because I felt that I wanted time for my family and that work got enough out of me as it was.

But whatever choice you make don't let others make you feel guilty about it.

I don't feel guilty about it. It's the right decision for us, and if other people think it's odd, then it's their problem, not ours.

I'm quite proud of the fact that some friends of ours, with a son just a month younger than ours, have recently made a similar decision. Now their son's a year old, he's chucked in his job to become full-time carer, and she's gone back to work four days a week. Apparently my example was instrumental in this.

Bravo.

Sean_F

taffys said:

''If women want the conventions broken down, they should not erect barriers to men who also break other conventions.''

I always think its funny how women want an ever wider range of opportunities, and at the same time a vast store of eligible men with good careers to marry, because women simply don;t date down.

Where are all the good men???.....er.....you took their jobs.

Not to mention the feminists who think that imprisonment is a fitting punishment for male criminals, but inhuman and degrading treatment for female criminals.