If Theresa May had had a child out of wedlock, would she have been a serious contender in 2016? Unlikely that she would have run at all.
You might not have noticed but we have just elected a bloke to be PM with a massive majority that has been married several times, had numerous affairs, nobody knows how many kids out of wedlock and has a much younger girlfriend....clearly the public didn't give a shit about it.
While I abhor Justin's view on these matters - I don't give two sh*ts about issues of illegitimacy even - nor agree with the extent of any effect of it, if any, I wouldn't be surprised if a woman would have faced more of a reaction for having the same backstory as Johnson.
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Morals are personal things. Things do cease to be moral or immoral in general societal terms as things change but of course individuals will go against the flow. There were no doubt people who thought it morally acceptable back then, against the grain, as well. Lots of things were thought moral in the past which are not considered so now, are we still to suggest they are moral despite that?
It's an argument that goes nowhere when general societal views of today are held up as no indication of morality or immorality, yet general societal views of the past are, but only for matters convenient for us to individual issues.
I don't dissent from that. Of course, there was always a minority in the 1950s - and earlier - who did not adhere to the perceived prevailing view of the times. Personally I have little time for 'political correctness' and resent being pressured to 'go with the flow.'
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Morals are personal things. Things do cease to be moral or immoral in general societal terms as things change but of course individuals will go against the flow. There were no doubt people who thought it morally acceptable back then, against the grain, as well. Lots of things were thought moral in the past which are not considered so now, are we still to suggest they are moral despite that?
It's an argument that goes nowhere when general societal views of today are held up as no indication of morality or immorality, yet general societal views of the past are, but only for matters convenient for us to individual issues.
I don't dissent from that. Of course, there was always a minority in the 1950s - and earlier - who did not adhere to the perceived prevailing view of the times. Personally I have little time for 'political correctness' and resent being pressured to 'go with the flow.'
Are you sure the Labour Party is the right party for you? It doesn't seem like you share many of their views on society.
"The backing of the third-largest union, who praised the Wigan MP as a “breath of fresh air” has turned a potentially two-horse race into a final four showdown."
If Theresa May had had a child out of wedlock, would she have been a serious contender in 2016? Unlikely that she would have run at all.
You might not have noticed but we have just elected a bloke to be PM with a massive majority that has been married several times, had numerous affairs, nobody knows how many kids out of wedlock and has a much younger girlfriend....clearly the public didn't give a shit about it.
Nandy by all account is in a stable long term relationship, what's the big deal if she decides to get married or not.
That somewhat contradicts the idea that the traditional Labour voters are 'socially conservative.' I still believe that Theresa May would not have been a candidate in 2016 , had she such a background story.
"The backing of the third-largest union, who praised the Wigan MP as a “breath of fresh air” has turned a potentially two-horse race into a final four showdown."
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Morals are personal things. Things do cease to be moral or immoral in general societal terms as things change but of course individuals will go against the flow. There were no doubt people who thought it morally acceptable back then, against the grain, as well. Lots of things were thought moral in the past which are not considered so now, are we still to suggest they are moral despite that?
It's an argument that goes nowhere when general societal views of today are held up as no indication of morality or immorality, yet general societal views of the past are, but only for matters convenient for us to individual issues.
I don't dissent from that. Of course, there was always a minority in the 1950s - and earlier - who did not adhere to the perceived prevailing view of the times. Personally I have little time for 'political correctness' and resent being pressured to 'go with the flow.'
Try assessing people by the content of their character, and their qualities as parents, rather than whether they are in possession of a marriage certificate.
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Morals are personal things. Things do cease to be moral or immoral in general societal terms as things change but of course individuals will go against the flow. There were no doubt people who thought it morally acceptable back then, against the grain, as well. Lots of things were thought moral in the past which are not considered so now, are we still to suggest they are moral despite that?
It's an argument that goes nowhere when general societal views of today are held up as no indication of morality or immorality, yet general societal views of the past are, but only for matters convenient for us to individual issues.
I don't dissent from that. Of course, there was always a minority in the 1950s - and earlier - who did not adhere to the perceived prevailing view of the times. Personally I have little time for 'political correctness' and resent being pressured to 'go with the flow.'
Are you sure the Labour Party is the right party for you? It doesn't seem like you share many of their views on society.
I am not a Labour Party member - and have not been so since 1996. However, I will have a vote as a member of the Jewish Labour Movement.
The Lords sending the bill back once with a couple of amendments is hardly conclusive evidence of them doing everything they can to block the bill, nor a constitutional crisis. It’s perfectly normal. If they do so repeatedly, that is another matter...
The Lords sending the bill back once with a couple of amendments is hardly conclusive evidence of them doing everything they can to block the bill, nor a constitutional crisis. It’s perfectly normal. If they do so repeatedly, that is another matter...
If Theresa May had had a child out of wedlock, would she have been a serious contender in 2016? Unlikely that she would have run at all.
You might not have noticed but we have just elected a bloke to be PM with a massive majority that has been married several times, had numerous affairs, nobody knows how many kids out of wedlock and has a much younger girlfriend....clearly the public didn't give a shit about it.
Nandy by all account is in a stable long term relationship, what's the big deal if she decides to get married or not.
That somewhat contradicts the idea that the traditional Labour voters are 'socially conservative.' I still believe that Theresa May would not have been a candidate in 2016 , had she such a background story.
May was attacked for being childless by someone equally as bigoted as you. She might have been better off were she a single mum.
If Theresa May had had a child out of wedlock, would she have been a serious contender in 2016? Unlikely that she would have run at all.
You might not have noticed but we have just elected a bloke to be PM with a massive majority that has been married several times, had numerous affairs, nobody knows how many kids out of wedlock and has a much younger girlfriend....clearly the public didn't give a shit about it.
Nandy by all account is in a stable long term relationship, what's the big deal if she decides to get married or not.
That somewhat contradicts the idea that the traditional Labour voters are 'socially conservative.' I still believe that Theresa May would not have been a candidate in 2016 , had she such a background story.
May was attacked for being childless by someone equally as bigoted as you. She might have been better off were she a single mum.
Presumably you take the view that the vast majority of people were bigoted in the 1950s and 1960s?
The Lords sending the bill back once with a couple of amendments is hardly conclusive evidence of them doing everything they can to block the bill, nor a constitutional crisis. It’s perfectly normal. If they do so repeatedly, that is another matter...
It is nailed on they will.
We’ll see... I think not. At most once more. I seem to recall there was a brief bit of ping pong on some important matter prior to the election (temporarily escapes me what the issue was). Everyone got briefly very excited about it and then they backed down after making their point.
Thornberry is the one it really matters for. Looks like she will need 33.
Is there some dark art behind Unite’s sluggishness to endorse, do you think? I.e. they are holding back putting a candidate over the line, fearing CLPs then get a free vote and could potentially push Emily through?
If Theresa May had had a child out of wedlock, would she have been a serious contender in 2016? Unlikely that she would have run at all.
You might not have noticed but we have just elected a bloke to be PM with a massive majority that has been married several times, had numerous affairs, nobody knows how many kids out of wedlock and has a much younger girlfriend....clearly the public didn't give a shit about it.
Nandy by all account is in a stable long term relationship, what's the big deal if she decides to get married or not.
That somewhat contradicts the idea that the traditional Labour voters are 'socially conservative.' I still believe that Theresa May would not have been a candidate in 2016 , had she such a background story.
May was attacked for being childless by someone equally as bigoted as you. She might have been better off were she a single mum.
Presumably you take the view that the vast majority of people were bigoted in the 1950s and 1960s?
Well if you judge them by today's standard, then probably yes. Racism and homophobia was a lot more prevalent e.g Alan Turing was criminalised for being gay.
But we don't (or rather we shouldn't), rather society has moved on and evolved.
If Theresa May had had a child out of wedlock, would she have been a serious contender in 2016? Unlikely that she would have run at all.
You might not have noticed but we have just elected a bloke to be PM with a massive majority that has been married several times, had numerous affairs, nobody knows how many kids out of wedlock and has a much younger girlfriend....clearly the public didn't give a shit about it.
Nandy by all account is in a stable long term relationship, what's the big deal if she decides to get married or not.
That somewhat contradicts the idea that the traditional Labour voters are 'socially conservative.' I still believe that Theresa May would not have been a candidate in 2016 , had she such a background story.
May was attacked for being childless by someone equally as bigoted as you. She might have been better off were she a single mum.
Presumably you take the view that the vast majority of people were bigoted in the 1950s and 1960s?
Yes. Thankfully most of society has progressed since then.
Edit: I see Francis answered similarly, simultaneously.
If Theresa May had had a child out of wedlock, would she have been a serious contender in 2016? Unlikely that she would have run at all.
You might not have noticed but we have just elected a bloke to be PM with a massive majority that has been married several times, had numerous affairs, nobody knows how many kids out of wedlock and has a much younger girlfriend....clearly the public didn't give a shit about it.
Nandy by all account is in a stable long term relationship, what's the big deal if she decides to get married or not.
That somewhat contradicts the idea that the traditional Labour voters are 'socially conservative.' I still believe that Theresa May would not have been a candidate in 2016 , had she such a background story.
May was attacked for being childless by someone equally as bigoted as you. She might have been better off were she a single mum.
Presumably you take the view that the vast majority of people were bigoted in the 1950s and 1960s?
Of course, in some ways they were: casual antisemitism and racism were much more common.
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Morals are personal things. Things do cease to be moral or immoral in general societal terms as things change but of course individuals will go against the flow. There were no doubt people who thought it morally acceptable back then, against the grain, as well. Lots of things were thought moral in the past which are not considered so now, are we still to suggest they are moral despite that?
It's an argument that goes nowhere when general societal views of today are held up as no indication of morality or immorality, yet general societal views of the past are, but only for matters convenient for us to individual issues.
I don't dissent from that. Of course, there was always a minority in the 1950s - and earlier - who did not adhere to the perceived prevailing view of the times. Personally I have little time for 'political correctness' and resent being pressured to 'go with the flow.'
Are you sure the Labour Party is the right party for you? It doesn't seem like you share many of their views on society.
I'm quite new here and haven't yet worked out which wing of the Labour party you're on . I'm guessing Corbynite because they're the ones who are supposed to yell "f*** off and join the Tories", right?
justin's views on this are very silly, but I expect he's used to people saying that and much worse. As long as he doesn't discriminate against unmarried couples and isn't rude to them, he's doing almost no harm and is in a tiny minority, so it's hardly worth making a fuss about. Plus, I intensely dislike mob-mentality.
If Theresa May had had a child out of wedlock, would she have been a serious contender in 2016? Unlikely that she would have run at all.
You might not have noticed but we have just elected a bloke to be PM with a massive majority that has been married several times, had numerous affairs, nobody knows how many kids out of wedlock and has a much younger girlfriend....clearly the public didn't give a shit about it.
Nandy by all account is in a stable long term relationship, what's the big deal if she decides to get married or not.
That somewhat contradicts the idea that the traditional Labour voters are 'socially conservative.' I still believe that Theresa May would not have been a candidate in 2016 , had she such a background story.
May was attacked for being childless by someone equally as bigoted as you. She might have been better off were she a single mum.
Presumably you take the view that the vast majority of people were bigoted in the 1950s and 1960s?
Well if you judge them by today's standard, then probably yes. Racism and homophobia was a lot more prevalent e.g Alan Turing was criminalised for being gay.
But we don't (or rather we shouldn't), rather society has moved on and evolved.
But those of a socially conservative disposition cannot be expected to accept that all changes have been for the good. Many certainly have - as you mention re - racism and sexual orientation. I also welcome the abolition of Capital Punishment - but do not support Abortion on Demand.
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Morals are personal things. Things do cease to be moral or immoral in general societal terms as things change but of course individuals will go against the flow. There were no doubt people who thought it morally acceptable back then, against the grain, as well. Lots of things were thought moral in the past which are not considered so now, are we still to suggest they are moral despite that?
It's an argument that goes nowhere when general societal views of today are held up as no indication of morality or immorality, yet general societal views of the past are, but only for matters convenient for us to individual issues.
I don't dissent from that. Of course, there was always a minority in the 1950s - and earlier - who did not adhere to the perceived prevailing view of the times. Personally I have little time for 'political correctness' and resent being pressured to 'go with the flow.'
Are you sure the Labour Party is the right party for you? It doesn't seem like you share many of their views on society.
I'm quite new here and haven't yet worked out which wing of the Labour party you're on . I'm guessing Corbynite because they're the ones who are supposed to yell "f*** off and join the Tories", right?
justin's views on this are very silly, but I expect he's used to people saying that and much worse. As long as he doesn't discriminate against unmarried couples and isn't rude to them, he's doing almost no harm and is in a tiny minority, so it's hardly worth making a fuss about. Plus, I intensely dislike mob-mentality.
He clearly does discriminate.
He will remove his vote for Lisa Nandy based purely on his learning she’s an unmarried mother.
If that’s not discrimination, it’s hard to see what is.
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Morals are personal things. Things do cease to be moral or immoral in general societal terms as things change but of course individuals will go against the flow. There were no doubt people who thought it morally acceptable back then, against the grain, as well. Lots of things were thought moral in the past which are not considered so now, are we still to suggest they are moral despite that?
It's an argument that goes nowhere when general societal views of today are held up as no indication of morality or immorality, yet general societal views of the past are, but only for matters convenient for us to individual issues.
I don't dissent from that. Of course, there was always a minority in the 1950s - and earlier - who did not adhere to the perceived prevailing view of the times. Personally I have little time for 'political correctness' and resent being pressured to 'go with the flow.'
Are you sure the Labour Party is the right party for you? It doesn't seem like you share many of their views on society.
I'm quite new here and haven't yet worked out which wing of the Labour party you're on . I'm guessing Corbynite because they're the ones who are supposed to yell "f*** off and join the Tories", right?
justin's views on this are very silly, but I expect he's used to people saying that and much worse. As long as he doesn't discriminate against unmarried couples and isn't rude to them, he's doing almost no harm and is in a tiny minority, so it's hardly worth making a fuss about. Plus, I intensely dislike mob-mentality.
He clearly does discriminate.
He will remove his vote for Lisa Nandy based purely on his learning she’s an unmarried mother.
If that’s not discrimination, it’s hard to see what is.
Voting isn't covered by discrimination law for obvious reasons, and people frequently state that they are going to vote in a certain way based on protected characteristics (age, race, gender). I've heard them criticised for identity politics, but never for discrimination.
As I said, I think his views are silly, and as a Nandy supporter I hope he changes his mind. But I really don't see the benefit of piling in on the shrinking minority of people who still think this way.
justin's views on this are very silly, but I expect he's used to people saying that and much worse. As long as he doesn't discriminate against unmarried couples and isn't rude to them, he's doing almost no harm and is in a tiny minority, so it's hardly worth making a fuss about. Plus, I intensely dislike mob-mentality.
+1. It's a viewpoint that used to be common and is now rare, but it doesn't mean he isn't entitled to it.
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Morals are personal things. Things do cease to be moral or immoral in general societal terms as things change but of course individuals will go against the flow. There were no doubt people who thought it morally acceptable back then, against the grain, as well. Lots of things were thought moral in the past which are not considered so now, are we still to suggest they are moral despite that?
It's an argument that goes nowhere when general societal views of today are held up as no indication of morality or immorality, yet general societal views of the past are, but only for matters convenient for us to individual issues.
I don't dissent from that. Of course, there was always a minority in the 1950s - and earlier - who did not adhere to the perceived prevailing view of the times. Personally I have little time for 'political correctness' and resent being pressured to 'go with the flow.'
Are you sure the Labour Party is the right party for you? It doesn't seem like you share many of their views on society.
I'm quite new here and haven't yet worked out which wing of the Labour party you're on . I'm guessing Corbynite because they're the ones who are supposed to yell "f*** off and join the Tories", right?
justin's views on this are very silly, but I expect he's used to people saying that and much worse. As long as he doesn't discriminate against unmarried couples and isn't rude to them, he's doing almost no harm and is in a tiny minority, so it's hardly worth making a fuss about. Plus, I intensely dislike mob-mentality.
He clearly does discriminate.
He will remove his vote for Lisa Nandy based purely on his learning she’s an unmarried mother.
If that’s not discrimination, it’s hard to see what is.
Voting isn't covered by discrimination law for obvious reasons, and people frequently state that they are going to vote in a certain way based on protected characteristics (age, race, gender). I've heard them criticised for identity politics, but never for discrimination.
As I said, I think his views are silly, and as a Nandy supporter I hope he changes his mind. But I really don't see the benefit of piling in on the shrinking minority of people who still think this way.
Once again... gender is not a protected characteristic.
Comments
Permissive society? For crying out loud man, get a life. Live and let live.
"The backing of the third-largest union, who praised the Wigan MP as a “breath of fresh air” has turned a potentially two-horse race into a final four showdown."
http://politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/109254/analysis-why-its-been-good-day-lisa-nandy-and
I still believe that Theresa May would not have been a candidate in 2016 , had she such a background story.
https://twitter.com/worgztheowl/status/1219665375115272192
But we don't (or rather we shouldn't), rather society has moved on and evolved.
Edit: I see Francis answered similarly, simultaneously.
This thread has withdrawn from the leadership contest due to lack of nominations
justin's views on this are very silly, but I expect he's used to people saying that and much worse. As long as he doesn't discriminate against unmarried couples and isn't rude to them, he's doing almost no harm and is in a tiny minority, so it's hardly worth making a fuss about. Plus, I intensely dislike mob-mentality.
He will remove his vote for Lisa Nandy based purely on his learning she’s an unmarried mother.
If that’s not discrimination, it’s hard to see what is.
As I said, I think his views are silly, and as a Nandy supporter I hope he changes his mind. But I really don't see the benefit of piling in on the shrinking minority of people who still think this way.