I've read some people theorising that Trump is going to run a Trump / Trump ticket in 2020 with Ivanka as VP. The suggestion is a) she is more able to get centrist votes, b) if Trump resigns because all the crimes he has committed Ivanka will pardon him unlike a Dem or even Pence (who may not be willing to waste the political capital) and c) because he really is a tinpot dictator who thinks his kids can be president after him.
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
I think Alastair Campbell had it right when he said "We don't do God."
Civil service emails being automatically deleted after three months doesn't ring true to me.
True when I was there. Some departments give each person an email size limit before you have to delete to receive, but others just auto delete unless you choose to archive for posterity. Does seem mental, but the amount of storage must be staggering and most of it is pointless duplicates.
That said something as important as ambassadors opinion on Trump should be archived and lots of people would have access to the archive I think.
A couple of years ago people were speculating that Labour would be deselecting regularly dissident MPs. Turns out they're deselecting themselves. whether via ChUK or retirement.
To be fair, when not on the subject of hunting, Northern Ireland or Brexit, I've always heard she was a very good, assiduous constituency MP.
Can you think of a better way to flatter Trump’s ego? As was observed earlier, Fox is a vanishingly rare case of Brexit making someone less bonkers....
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
Islam is a belief system.
I don't think there are many people who who think it would be "phobic" to oppose a fascist PM, or a socialist PM, or an authoritarian PM, or a libertarian PM depending upon your own beliefs.
But opposing religious beliefs is deemed unacceptable in most quarters, in a way that opposing other beliefs isn't.
Civil service emails being automatically deleted after three months doesn't ring true to me.
True when I was there. Some departments give each person an email size limit before you have to delete to receive, but others just auto delete unless you choose to archive for posterity. Does seem mental, but the amount of storage must be staggering and most of it is pointless duplicates.
That said something as important as ambassadors opinion on Trump should be archived and lots of people would have access to the archive I think.
thx yes as several others have noted. It does seem strange and presumably they are accessible somehow? I can't see from a legal perspective that being a flyer?
A couple of years ago people were speculating that Labour would be deselecting regularly dissident MPs. Turns out they're deselecting themselves. whether via ChUK or retirement.
To be fair, when not on the subject of hunting, Northern Ireland or Brexit, I've always heard she was a very good, assiduous constituency MP.
Someone described Hunt as a perfect candidate to lead a Tory Party that no longer exists. I was thinking about that recently as I saw him first hand at an event. He was really excellent - fluent, persuasive, thoughtful and able to project a version of Conservatism that seemed comfortable with itself and with the modern world. I wouldn't sign up to it, but I could understand why people would. Then you look at this survey and understand why he is about to lose massively to a proven liar and incompetent. God help us all.
Then you look at this survey and understand why he is about to lose massively to a proven liar and incompetent. God help us all.
While it does look like a BoZo Premiership is
1. Inevitable 2. Chaotic
it also looks like it will be mercifully short-lived
Short-lived, probably. Whether mercifully so depends on what happens next.
Disagree. Chaotic, yes but haven't we learned our lessons about trying to get real life to operate in news cycle timeframes. Theresa May was a "dead woman walking" after GE2017 but it took years for the process to play out.
I think Boris sees out to 2022 whatever happens. In any scenario there is not the will or the gumption for the Cons to bring the house down around themselves. Sadly.
I think that represents maybe some of your low assumptions of women and their relationship to powerful men. She earned her economics degree with distinction and is considered one of her father's must trusted advisers.
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
Islam is a belief system.
I don't think there are many people who who think it would be "phobic" to oppose a fascist PM, or a socialist PM, or an authoritarian PM, or a libertarian PM depending upon your own beliefs.
But opposing religious beliefs is deemed unacceptable in most quarters, in a way that opposing other beliefs isn't.
In a way it's good to have someone willing to argue openly that prejudice on the basis of religion is reasonable, because at least it's honest and gets the issues out into the open.
Obviously it's not what the law says, but in a free society people should be able to argue that the law is wrong and should be changed - just as they should be able to argue in favour of racial discrimination, for example.
What you can't do is say that discrimination against one religion is fine, but discrimination against another is deplorable. So if discrimination against Muslims is fine, so is discrimination against Jews. No doubt about that.
Civil service emails being automatically deleted after three months doesn't ring true to me.
True when I was there. Some departments give each person an email size limit before you have to delete to receive, but others just auto delete unless you choose to archive for posterity. Does seem mental, but the amount of storage must be staggering and most of it is pointless duplicates.
That said something as important as ambassadors opinion on Trump should be archived and lots of people would have access to the archive I think.
thx yes as several others have noted. It does seem strange and presumably they are accessible somehow? I can't see from a legal perspective that being a flyer?
Well as long as every civil servant makes the correct designation of whether an email needs to be saved for legal purposes or not there should be no problem I think if you don't archive it, it's gone forever, or certainly beyond the ability of most people to retrieve.
One of my less enjoyable tasks was to prepare stats on how many emails people had archived in the past month, which was used to chastise people on the basis that if they hadn't archived very much, they were probably letting too much get deleted.
I think Boris sees out to 2022 whatever happens. In any scenario there is not the will or the gumption for the Cons to bring the house down around themselves. Sadly.
If we are still members of the EU on November 1st, the headbangers might summon the will.
Is there no piece of legislation bringing unwelcome unintended consequences that didn't originate under New Labour?
Dunno but that Indy story is from 2015 and it is now 2019, so the Conservatives had five or nine years to fix the three-month policy.
Yeah perhaps they thought it best not to dedicate years to working out all the crap, harmful legislation and then bringing counter legislation. cf hostile environment.
I've read some people theorising that Trump is going to run a Trump / Trump ticket in 2020 with Ivanka as VP. The suggestion is a) she is more able to get centrist votes, b) if Trump resigns because all the crimes he has committed Ivanka will pardon him unlike a Dem or even Pence (who may not be willing to waste the political capital) and c) because he really is a tinpot dictator who thinks his kids can be president after him.
To be fair, four years ago a lot of people thought Trump was scraping the bottom of the barrel to find Pence. Maybe Ivanka would be a step up.
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
I think Alastair Campbell had it right when he said "We don't do God."
You really don't have any idea at all of what he meant by that?
Is there no piece of legislation bringing unwelcome unintended consequences that didn't originate under New Labour?
Dunno but that Indy story is from 2015 and it is now 2019, so the Conservatives had five or nine years to fix the three-month policy.
Yeah perhaps they thought it best not to dedicate years to working out all the crap, harmful legislation and then bringing counter legislation. cf hostile environment.
Who said change the legislation? This is just an administrative quirk that could be changed with a click of the prime minister's fingers.
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
Islam is a belief system.
I don't think there are many people who who think it would be "phobic" to oppose a fascist PM, or a socialist PM, or an authoritarian PM, or a libertarian PM depending upon your own beliefs.
But opposing religious beliefs is deemed unacceptable in most quarters, in a way that opposing other beliefs isn't.
In a way it's good to have someone willing to argue openly that prejudice on the basis of religion is reasonable, because at least it's honest and gets the issues out into the open.
Obviously it's not what the law says, but in a free society people should be able to argue that the law is wrong and should be changed - just as they should be able to argue in favour of racial discrimination, for example.
What you can't do is say that discrimination against one religion is fine, but discrimination against another is deplorable. So if discrimination against Muslims is fine, so is discrimination against Jews. No doubt about that.
Actually there is doubt about that. Anti semitism and islamaphobia are not sides of the same coin. Which is why anti semitism has been part of the original RRA. Anti Semitism is more than just not liking people who follow judiasm. But about a wider set of prejudices which are more racial and go beyond religious practice.
Disagree. Chaotic, yes but haven't we learned our lessons about trying to get real life to operate in news cycle timeframes. Theresa May was a "dead woman walking" after GE2017 but it took years for the process to play out.
I think Boris sees out to 2022 whatever happens. In any scenario there is not the will or the gumption for the Cons to bring the house down around themselves. Sadly.
It's a very unpredictable situation, but it would only take a few of the current Tory MPs, or the DUP, to decide that enough is too much for Boris to lose a VONC. It's easy to see how that might happen, and very soon, because either the UK crashes out in chaos (or is about to), or the 31st October self-imposed ultimatum isn't met. Plus there are by-election risks.
Of course if he triumphs in a pre-31st October GE, without in the process splitting the party completely, then he'll be temporarily popular until the reality of No Deal hits home. Alternatively if he somehow manages the impossible and gets the WA through parliament he'll be deservedly popular for a long time, though not perhaps with his own party. But we're getting into unicorn territory there...
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
I think Alastair Campbell had it right when he said "We don't do God."
You really don't have any idea at all of what he meant by that?
I do know what he meant by it, and I agree with it. I don't care what nonsense someone believes in so long as they leave it at the door when they do their job.
Then you look at this survey and understand why he is about to lose massively to a proven liar and incompetent. God help us all.
While it does look like a BoZo Premiership is
1. Inevitable 2. Chaotic
it also looks like it will be mercifully short-lived
Short-lived, probably. Whether mercifully so depends on what happens next.
Disagree. Chaotic, yes but haven't we learned our lessons about trying to get real life to operate in news cycle timeframes. Theresa May was a "dead woman walking" after GE2017 but it took years for the process to play out.
I think Boris sees out to 2022 whatever happens. In any scenario there is not the will or the gumption for the Cons to bring the house down around themselves. Sadly.
Not likely to be in Tory hands though , given majority will fall to three after likely loss of Brecon & Radnor. Only a further two defections - or by election losses - will eliminate that even with continued DUP support.The game would probably be up if Grieve, Lee and Bebb resign the Whip following Johnson's election.
Civil service emails being automatically deleted after three months doesn't ring true to me.
True when I was there. Some departments give each person an email size limit before you have to delete to receive, but others just auto delete unless you choose to archive for posterity. Does seem mental, but the amount of storage must be staggering and most of it is pointless duplicates.
That said something as important as ambassadors opinion on Trump should be archived and lots of people would have access to the archive I think.
thx yes as several others have noted. It does seem strange and presumably they are accessible somehow? I can't see from a legal perspective that being a flyer?
Well as long as every civil servant makes the correct designation of whether an email needs to be saved for legal purposes or not there should be no problem I think if you don't archive it, it's gone forever, or certainly beyond the ability of most people to retrieve.
One of my less enjoyable tasks was to prepare stats on how many emails people had archived in the past month, which was used to chastise people on the basis that if they hadn't archived very much, they were probably letting too much get deleted.
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
Islam is a belief system.
I don't think there are many people who who think it would be "phobic" to oppose a fascist PM, or a socialist PM, or an authoritarian PM, or a libertarian PM depending upon your own beliefs.
But opposing religious beliefs is deemed unacceptable in most quarters, in a way that opposing other beliefs isn't.
In a way it's good to have someone willing to argue openly that prejudice on the basis of religion is reasonable, because at least it's honest and gets the issues out into the open.
Obviously it's not what the law says, but in a free society people should be able to argue that the law is wrong and should be changed - just as they should be able to argue in favour of racial discrimination, for example.
What you can't do is say that discrimination against one religion is fine, but discrimination against another is deplorable. So if discrimination against Muslims is fine, so is discrimination against Jews. No doubt about that.
Actually there is doubt about that. Anti semitism and islamaphobia are not sides of the same coin. Which is why anti semitism has been part of the original RRA. Anti Semitism is more than just not liking people who follow judiasm. But about a wider set of prejudices which are more racial and go beyond religious practice.
And maybe it's even useful to have someone explicitly arguing that Muslims aren't a race, so it's OK to be prejudiced against them.
Then you look at this survey and understand why he is about to lose massively to a proven liar and incompetent. God help us all.
While it does look like a BoZo Premiership is
1. Inevitable 2. Chaotic
it also looks like it will be mercifully short-lived
Short-lived, probably. Whether mercifully so depends on what happens next.
Disagree. Chaotic, yes but haven't we learned our lessons about trying to get real life to operate in news cycle timeframes. Theresa May was a "dead woman walking" after GE2017 but it took years for the process to play out.
I think Boris sees out to 2022 whatever happens. In any scenario there is not the will or the gumption for the Cons to bring the house down around themselves. Sadly.
Not likely to be in Tory hands though , given majority will fall to three after likely loss of Brecon & Radnor. Only a further two defections - or by election losses - will eliminate that even with continued DUP support.The game would probably be up if Grieve, Lee and Bebb resign the Whip following Johnson's election.
Yes the numbers look as though it is as good as a done deal but I think the reality of the situation tends to be more drawn out. Not that it couldn't or wouldn't happen just that it won't happen quickly imo.
I think that represents maybe some of your low assumptions of women and their relationship to powerful men. She earned her economics degree with distinction and is considered one of her father's must trusted advisers.
The relation in this case is daughter. Generally speaking, that is considered nepotism.
"A serial drink driver who smashed into three cars after knocking back a bottle of wine has been spared jail because she's a woman.
Victoria Parry, 30, from Stratford-upon-Avon,was told by a female judge that there was 'no question' she 'would have been straight down the stairs' to prison if she had been a man. Instead Parry was handed a suspended sentence and given a driving ban today - despite two previous convictions for offences involving excess alcohol. Judge Sarah Buckingham - who sentenced her today - previously sparked outrage when she gave her a second chance on account of her gender."
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
Islam is a belief system.
I don't think there are many people who who think it would be "phobic" to oppose a fascist PM, or a socialist PM, or an authoritarian PM, or a libertarian PM depending upon your own beliefs.
But opposing religious beliefs is deemed unacceptable in most quarters, in a way that opposing other beliefs isn't.
Hold on ... there is a massive difference between opposing specific beliefs that are part of a religion and castigating the person because they belong to that religion.
There are plenty of things to object to in religions: circumcision in Judaism and Islam (circumcision is widespread in the non-beliver Jewish) and both religions' lack of rights for women, Catholicism's hypocritical opposition to contraception.
But if I were to give a student worse marks, or to prevent a person getting a permanent job, based soley on his/her religion that would be completely unacceptable, and illegal, and rightly so.
This ambassador leak thing is weird, even by Brexiteer standards.
Perhaps someone did have the hare-brained idea of getting Farage out of the way by sending him to Washington and it hasn't gone according to plan.
Boris Johnson doesn't seem to be saying anything. Wonder whether he was in on the plot. Usually I go for cock up rather than conspiracy, but this looks like both.
MPs backed Boris because their judgement is sorely lacking.
There's no situation in the world where backing a known incompetent to be your leader makes things better.
I'd go for Scott_P's post below yours. Boris isn't the answer but the Tories don't actually have an answer it's a more well nothing else will work so let's go for the media friendly face...
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
Islam is a belief system.
I don't think there are many people who who think it would be "phobic" to oppose a fascist PM, or a socialist PM, or an authoritarian PM, or a libertarian PM depending upon your own beliefs.
But opposing religious beliefs is deemed unacceptable in most quarters, in a way that opposing other beliefs isn't.
In a way it's good to have someone willing to argue openly that prejudice on the basis of religion is reasonable, because at least it's honest and gets the issues out into the open.
Obviously it's not what the law says, but in a free society people should be able to argue that the law is wrong and should be changed - just as they should be able to argue in favour of racial discrimination, for example.
What you can't do is say that discrimination against one religion is fine, but discrimination against another is deplorable. So if discrimination against Muslims is fine, so is discrimination against Jews. No doubt about that.
As the Asher's Bakery case showed, the law does indeed distinguish between discrimination on grounds of belief and discrimination on the basis of other protected characteristics.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Defendants were entitled to discriminate, by refusing to produce material that would be used to promote a cause which they disagreed with.
Likewise, I think it's legitimate to consider the extent to which a politician's religious beliefs will affect his behaviour in office, before deciding whether to support that politician.
My own view is that the religious beliefs of someone like Lady Warsi, for example, would make her unsuitable for high office. The religious beliefs of Nus Ghani or Sajid Javid would not.
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
Islam is a belief system.
I don't think there are many people who who think it would be "phobic" to oppose a fascist PM, or a socialist PM, or an authoritarian PM, or a libertarian PM depending upon your own beliefs.
But opposing religious beliefs is deemed unacceptable in most quarters, in a way that opposing other beliefs isn't.
In a way it's good to have someone willing to argue openly that prejudice on the basis of religion is reasonable, because at least it's honest and gets the issues out into the open.
Obviously it's not what the law says, but in a free society people should be able to argue that the law is wrong and should be changed - just as they should be able to argue in favour of racial discrimination, for example.
What you can't do is say that discrimination against one religion is fine, but discrimination against another is deplorable. So if discrimination against Muslims is fine, so is discrimination against Jews. No doubt about that.
Actually there is doubt about that. Anti semitism and islamaphobia are not sides of the same coin. Which is why anti semitism has been part of the original RRA. Anti Semitism is more than just not liking people who follow judiasm. But about a wider set of prejudices which are more racial and go beyond religious practice.
And maybe it's even useful to have someone explicitly arguing that Muslims aren't a race, so it's OK to be prejudiced against them.
Remember Roman Catholics aren't a race either!
Yes, and we progressive types had supposed to consign blasphemy laws to the bin. Religion is a set of ideas. They deserve no more protection than any other set of ideas.
My own view is that the religious beliefs of someone like Lady Warsi, for example, would make her unsuitable for high office. The religious beliefs of Nus Ghani or Sajid Javid would not.
It's no different from the view that Tim Farron wasn't a good choice as leader of the LibDems because of his religious beliefs. Not wanting someone with particular views to be PM or leader of the party isn't necessarily the same as being prejudiced against that person (although it could be).
My own view is that the religious beliefs of someone like Lady Warsi, for example, would make her unsuitable for high office. The religious beliefs of Nus Ghani or Sajid Javid would not.
It's no different from the view that Tim Farron wasn't a good choice as leader of the LibDems because of his religious beliefs. Not wanting someone with particular views to be PM or leader of the party isn't necessarily the same as being prejudiced against that person (although it could be).
The difference with Tim was that he wouldn't let his beliefs get in the way of doing things - he knows that his personal believes differ from others and did know where his views differed from others..
Heck most of the people he worked with as Student President were gay...
“Honestly, I have no idea where these things come from,” said Swinson. “The Liberal Democrats are committed to the same old-fashioned, honest local campaigning that we’ve always done.”
"A serial drink driver who smashed into three cars after knocking back a bottle of wine has been spared jail because she's a woman.
Victoria Parry, 30, from Stratford-upon-Avon,was told by a female judge that there was 'no question' she 'would have been straight down the stairs' to prison if she had been a man. Instead Parry was handed a suspended sentence and given a driving ban today - despite two previous convictions for offences involving excess alcohol. Judge Sarah Buckingham - who sentenced her today - previously sparked outrage when she gave her a second chance on account of her gender."
I was unaware gender was a mitigating factor in sentencing, externalities such as being a new mother perhaps. But solely gender ?! I think this needs looking at.
Comments
https://twitter.com/davidheadviews/status/1148148807038844934?s=21
That said something as important as ambassadors opinion on Trump should be archived and lots of people would have access to the archive I think.
To be fair, when not on the subject of hunting, Northern Ireland or Brexit, I've always heard she was a very good, assiduous constituency MP.
https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1148073531038679040
I don't think there are many people who who think it would be "phobic" to oppose a fascist PM, or a socialist PM, or an authoritarian PM, or a libertarian PM depending upon your own beliefs.
But opposing religious beliefs is deemed unacceptable in most quarters, in a way that opposing other beliefs isn't.
Then you look at this survey and understand why he is about to lose massively to a proven liar and incompetent.
God help us all.
1. Inevitable
2. Chaotic
it also looks like it will be mercifully short-lived
It can't be any worse...Yeah, OK.
I think Boris sees out to 2022 whatever happens. In any scenario there is not the will or the gumption for the Cons to bring the house down around themselves. Sadly.
Edit: Ed Davey as probably the best result for the country, when the hell did that happen
Obviously it's not what the law says, but in a free society people should be able to argue that the law is wrong and should be changed - just as they should be able to argue in favour of racial discrimination, for example.
What you can't do is say that discrimination against one religion is fine, but discrimination against another is deplorable. So if discrimination against Muslims is fine, so is discrimination against Jews. No doubt about that.
One of my less enjoyable tasks was to prepare stats on how many emails people had archived in the past month, which was used to chastise people on the basis that if they hadn't archived very much, they were probably letting too much get deleted.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1148210416239218688
They do lack the gumption though
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/08/hair-discrimination-racism-california-ban
Syrizias poll drop is actually fairly modest considering the change of direction.
Of course if he triumphs in a pre-31st October GE, without in the process splitting the party completely, then he'll be temporarily popular until the reality of No Deal hits home. Alternatively if he somehow manages the impossible and gets the WA through parliament he'll be deservedly popular for a long time, though not perhaps with his own party. But we're getting into unicorn territory there...
Remember Roman Catholics aren't a race either!
Generally speaking, that is considered nepotism.
An anti-Brexit coup might give Jo Swinson the keys to No 10
James Kirkup"
https://unherd.com/2019/07/how-the-lib-dems-could-seize-power/
MPs backed Boris because their judgement is sorely lacking.
There's no situation in the world where backing a known incompetent to be your leader makes things better.
Victoria Parry, 30, from Stratford-upon-Avon,was told by a female judge that there was 'no question' she 'would have been straight down the stairs' to prison if she had been a man.
Instead Parry was handed a suspended sentence and given a driving ban today - despite two previous convictions for offences involving excess alcohol.
Judge Sarah Buckingham - who sentenced her today - previously sparked outrage when she gave her a second chance on account of her gender."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7224457/Serial-drink-driver-30-spared-jail-shes-WOMAN.html#comments
There are plenty of things to object to in religions: circumcision in Judaism and Islam (circumcision is widespread in the non-beliver Jewish) and both religions' lack of rights for women, Catholicism's hypocritical opposition to contraception.
But if I were to give a student worse marks, or to prevent a person getting a permanent job, based soley on his/her religion that would be completely unacceptable, and illegal, and rightly so.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Defendants were entitled to discriminate, by refusing to produce material that would be used to promote a cause which they disagreed with.
Likewise, I think it's legitimate to consider the extent to which a politician's religious beliefs will affect his behaviour in office, before deciding whether to support that politician.
My own view is that the religious beliefs of someone like Lady Warsi, for example, would make her unsuitable for high office. The religious beliefs of Nus Ghani or Sajid Javid would not.
Heck most of the people he worked with as Student President were gay...
“Honestly, I have no idea where these things come from,” said Swinson. “The Liberal Democrats are committed to the same old-fashioned, honest local campaigning that we’ve always done.”
I think this needs looking at.
Maybe male criminals should start identifying as women.
But d'Hondt? No, no, no, James. STV surely.