I was lurking during that conversation and had no interest in it, except as a spectator sport like going to the Zoo.
To me it seemed the sort of thing men talk about when they get together, and no need for me to be a wet blanket.
I am myself somewhat left-leaning, though less so than you, I expect.
The sort of debate that interests me about left/right differences and gender issues is that the left make the noise about equality and don't much vote for women unless they've no option and the right just allow a free-for-all through which women can & do fight their way to the top.
Regardless of politics, I prefer an approach that works.
Any woman of sense needs only to look at what happened to Harriet Harman to realise that her own chances as a Labour politician are doomed from the outset. Or the shambles the Mr Corbyn produced when deciding his first Shadow Cabinet - no woman's name apparently entered his mind, never mind his ShadCab, until someone pointed it out, far too late to disguise the fact.
If a woman wants to join a boys' club, where women are the groupies, she can't do better than join the Labour party (or, from what I read, any of the other left organisations).
I don't understand why the younger women can't see it, but there are always plenty of candidates for the lower rungs of the ladder.
(All thoroughly off-topic, for which I apologise, and Good afternoon, everyone.)
On what you've said: I agree that (at least in a Britain) there seems to be more opportunities for women as individuals to get the top in a right wing party. However I have noticed that many righties who will vote for a woman leader seem reluctant to acknowledge structural inequalities that affect every day women in society.
Women prefer men richer than them, even when the women are rich enough themselves. Indeed they actually have more and better orgasms with richer men, as I can personally attest, as a rich man.
Also, we know from pornsite data what sex women want, and it isn't gentle canoodling. They like what men want, and they like the hot filthy stuff, where the women get a right seeing-to.
"Even more interesting than who is having sex, but how. Inquisitor reports: "Women also show a strong preference for sado-maschistic adult video viewing, with the terms 'rough sex' and 'bondage' both appearing in the top 16 search terms for women, but not for men." I'm not shocked that these are popular search topics for women, but I wouldn't have guessed that it was that much more popular for women than for men."
More women like bondage and rough sex THAN MEN. And that isn't porn with the woman tying up the man, or giving him a pegging. That's sex with the woman getting spanked, hogtied and ball-gagged.
Taller men is a physical preference, not a personality preference. I like taller guys, but if I meet a 5'8 guy who I like I'm not going to turn him down based on him not being over 6'0.
On your second point: that's one 'controversial' study. No evidence from your link that it's findings are accepted by the scientific community as a whole.
The porn example is flawed because most women don't watch porn. The vast majority of porn watchers are men, and a range of studies show this.
What women want is a lover who makes them feel desirable and desired, who makes them feel good - more than good, absolutely BLOODY WONDERFUL - and who has some imagination and a sense of humour.
It's not hard, chaps.
A sense of humour has always stood me in good stead.
That, and a Sex Olympics guaranteed podium finish when it came to oral.....
I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50
Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning
Hmm there's a lot of Daily Mail outrage over the decision. But in the cold light of day I see no reason why the good burghers of Stoke won't be as aware of what it actually signified as those of us on here.
Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.
If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.
Well quite obviously I didn't see that.
What I find strange is that the SC judgement is pretty straightforward. Parliament must be consulted, for valid constitutional reasons, all with precedent, before A50 can be triggered.
Easy peasy.
Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.
I cannot stand your patronising, condescending tone and find it irritating to converse with you.
I think this is a good thing for Ukip, if you think differently you can lay me a bet?
Wow issues much? Please feel free not to converse with me if it winds you up that much, we'll both manage.
And the only bet I ever had with you I lost. I am tempted, however, this time. I'm happy to bet you £10 that UKIP won't win Stoke.
Is it an issue to find someone extremely annoying? If so I have them!
Ok what price are you offering?
I am offering an old-fashioned amateur bet - if UKIP win I give you £10, if UKIP don't win you give me £10.
Oh ok I'll pass, the bookies and exchanges are offering £15 for £10
Women prefer men richer than them, even when the women are rich enough themselves. Indeed they actually have more and better orgasms with richer men, as I can personally attest, as a rich man.
Also, we know from pornsite data what sex women want, and it isn't gentle canoodling. They like what men want, and they like the hot filthy stuff, where the women get a right seeing-to.
"Even more interesting than who is having sex, but how. Inquisitor reports: "Women also show a strong preference for sado-maschistic adult video viewing, with the terms 'rough sex' and 'bondage' both appearing in the top 16 search terms for women, but not for men." I'm not shocked that these are popular search topics for women, but I wouldn't have guessed that it was that much more popular for women than for men."
More women like bondage and rough sex THAN MEN. And that isn't porn with the woman tying up the man, or giving him a pegging. That's sex with the woman getting spanked, hogtied and ball-gagged.
Taller men is a physical preference, not a personality preference. I like taller guys, but if I meet a 5'8 guy who I like I'm not going to turn him down based on him not being over 6'0.
On your second point: that's one 'controversial' study. No evidence from your link that it's findings are accepted by the scientific community as a whole.
The porn example is flawed because most women don't watch porn. The vast majority of porn watchers are men, and a range of studies show this.
What women want is a lover who makes them feel desirable and desired, who makes them feel good - more than good, absolutely BLOODY WONDERFUL - and who has some imagination and a sense of humour.
It's not hard, chaps.
A sense of humour has always stood me in good stead.
That, and a Sex Olympics guaranteed podium finish when it came to oral.....
Far, far tmi, chief.
Well, it's not the sort of thing you often get to put on your CV.
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
But if the flag waver also believed in white supremacy, you'd have good reason to be suspicious. And this Muslim woman appears to support sharia law. That is to say: she supports a system which says women are intrinsically inferior to men, the way Nazis believed Jews were intrinsically inferior to Germans
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
She doesn't support Sharia law. She's a civil rights activist who speaks for women's rights, minority rights and gay rights.
I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50
Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning
Hmm there's a lot of Daily Mail outrage over the decision. But in the cold light of day I see no reason why the good burghers of Stoke won't be as aware of what it actually signified as those of us on here.
Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.
If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.
Well quite obviously I didn't see that.
What I find strange is that the SC judgement is pretty straightforward. Parliament must be consulted, for valid constitutional reasons, all with precedent, before A50 can be triggered.
Easy peasy.
Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.
I cannot stand your patronising, condescending tone and find it irritating to converse with you.
I think this is a good thing for Ukip, if you think differently you can lay me a bet?
Wow issues much? Please feel free not to converse with me if it winds you up that much, we'll both manage.
And the only bet I ever had with you I lost. I am tempted, however, this time. I'm happy to bet you £10 that UKIP won't win Stoke.
Is it an issue to find someone extremely annoying? If so I have them!
Ok what price are you offering?
I am offering an old-fashioned amateur bet - if UKIP win I give you £10, if UKIP don't win you give me £10.
Oh ok I'll pass, the bookies and exchanges are offering £15 for £10
I was lurking during that conversation and had no interest in it, except as a spectator sport like going to the Zoo.
To me it seemed the sort of thing men talk about when they get together, and no need for me to be a wet blanket.
I am myself somewhat left-leaning, though less so than you, I expect.
The sort of debate that interests me about left/right differences and gender issues is that the left make the noise about equality and don't much vote for women unless they've no option and the right just allow a free-for-all through which women can & do fight their way to the top.
Regardless of politics, I prefer an approach that works.
Any woman of sense needs only to look at what happened to Harriet Harman to realise that her own chances as a Labour politician are doomed from the outset. Or the shambles the Mr Corbyn produced when deciding his first Shadow Cabinet - no woman's name apparently entered his mind, never mind his ShadCab, until someone pointed it out, far too late to disguise the fact.
If a woman wants to join a boys' club, where women are the groupies, she can't do better than join the Labour party (or, from what I read, any of the other left organisations).
I don't understand why the younger women can't see it, but there are always plenty of candidates for the lower rungs of the ladder.
(All thoroughly off-topic, for which I apologise, and Good afternoon, everyone.)
On what you've said: I agree that (at least in a Britain) there seems to be more opportunities for women as individuals to get the top in a right wing party. However I have noticed that many righties who will vote for a woman leader seem reluctant to acknowledge structural inequalities that affect every day women in society.
Does you think "progressive" parties like Labour and the LibDems will ever have a female leader?
I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50
Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning
Hmm there's a lot of Daily Mail outrage over the decision. But in the cold light of day I see no reason why the good burghers of Stoke won't be as aware of what it actually signified as those of us on here.
Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.
If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.
Well quite obviously I didn't see that.
What I find strange is that the SC judgement is pretty straightforward. Parliament must be consulted, for valid constitutional reasons, all with precedent, before A50 can be triggered.
Easy peasy.
Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.
I cannot stand your patronising, condescending tone and find it irritating to converse with you.
I think this is a good thing for Ukip, if you think differently you can lay me a bet?
Wow issues much? Please feel free not to converse with me if it winds you up that much, we'll both manage.
And the only bet I ever had with you I lost. I am tempted, however, this time. I'm happy to bet you £10 that UKIP won't win Stoke.
Is it an issue to find someone extremely annoying? If so I have them!
Ok what price are you offering?
I am offering an old-fashioned amateur bet - if UKIP win I give you £10, if UKIP don't win you give me £10.
Oh ok I'll pass, the bookies and exchanges are offering £15 for £10
But it's free money.
Who said that? I said it was 50/50
OK if you're scared that's fine.
If UKIP win I'll pay you £15. If they lose you pay me £10.
Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.
Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.
Every topic on here is dominated by men, as PB has never had a gender-balanced set of contributors in the 11-odd years I've been hanging around this den of iniquity.
I do agree that some of the lines of argument were bizarre. I find it sad that 'never kissed a Tory' is a thing, but most relationships need common views and interests in order to thrive, so it's just one of those things.
Labour generally agree that Clem Attlee was their greatest PM, and he famously not only kissed a Tory, his wife was one!.
Love the stories of how Violet Attlee regularly gave Special Branch the willies as she drove Clem at great speed round the campaign trail! True Tory woman!
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
But if the flag waver also believed in white supremacy, you'd have good reason to be suspicious. And this Muslim woman appears to support sharia law. That is to say: she supports a system which says women are intrinsically inferior to men, the way Nazis believed Jews were intrinsically inferior to Germans
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
She doesn't support Sharia law. She's a civil rights activist who speaks for women's rights, minority rights and gay rights.
But it suits SeanT if she supported Sharia Law. She also supported Bernie Sanders, who is a Jew. So you can't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I was lurking during that conversation and had no interest in it, except as a spectator sport like going to the Zoo.
To me it seemed the sort of thing men talk about when they get together, and no need for me to be a wet blanket.
I am myself somewhat left-leaning, though less so than you, I expect.
The sort of debate that interests me about left/right differences and gender issues is that the left make the noise about equality and don't much vote for women unless they've no option and the right just allow a free-for-all through which women can & do fight their way to the top.
Regardless of politics, I prefer an approach that works.
Any woman of sense needs only to look at what happened to Harriet Harman to realise that her own chances as a Labour politician are doomed from the outset. Or the shambles the Mr Corbyn produced when deciding his first Shadow Cabinet - no woman's name apparently entered his mind, never mind his ShadCab, until someone pointed it out, far too late to disguise the fact.
If a woman wants to join a boys' club, where women are the groupies, she can't do better than join the Labour party (or, from what I read, any of the other left organisations).
I don't understand why the younger women can't see it, but there are always plenty of candidates for the lower rungs of the ladder.
(All thoroughly off-topic, for which I apologise, and Good afternoon, everyone.)
On what you've said: I agree that (at least in a Britain) there seems to be more opportunities for women as individuals to get the top in a right wing party. However I have noticed that many righties who will vote for a woman leader seem reluctant to acknowledge structural inequalities that affect every day women in society.
Does you think "progressive" parties like Labour and the LibDems will ever have a female leader?
For the foreseeable future no. There are many people on the left who it appears are more about having white liberal men speak on behalf of women/minorities than actually allowing these groups to speak for themselves.
I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50
Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning
Hmm there's a lot of Daily Mail outrage over the decision. But in the cold light of day I see no reason why the good burghers of Stoke won't be as aware of what it actually signified as those of us on here.
Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.
If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.
Well quite obviously I didn't see that.
What I find strange is that the SC judgement is pretty straightforward. Parliament must be consulted, for valid constitutional reasons, all with precedent, before A50 can be triggered.
Easy peasy.
Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.
I cannot stand your patronising, condescending tone and find it irritating to converse with you.
I think this is a good thing for Ukip, if you think differently you can lay me a bet?
Wow issues much? Please feel free not to converse with me if it winds you up that much, we'll both manage.
And the only bet I ever had with you I lost. I am tempted, however, this time. I'm happy to bet you £10 that UKIP won't win Stoke.
Is it an issue to find someone extremely annoying? If so I have them!
Ok what price are you offering?
I am offering an old-fashioned amateur bet - if UKIP win I give you £10, if UKIP don't win you give me £10.
Oh ok I'll pass, the bookies and exchanges are offering £15 for £10
But it's free money.
Who said that? I said it was 50/50
OK if you're scared that's fine.
If UKIP win I'll pay you £15. If they lose you pay me £10.
Ok I'm scared let's not bother
Funny how folks are different, if someone told me they found me irritating, I'd try to be less irritating!
I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50
Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning
Hmm there's a lot of Daily Mail outrage over the decision. But in the cold light of day I see no reason why the good burghers of Stoke won't be as aware of what it actually signified as those of us on here.
Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.
If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.
Well quite obviously I didn't see that.
What I find strange is that the SC judgement is pretty straightforward. Parliament must be consulted, for valid constitutional reasons, all with precedent, before A50 can be triggered.
Easy peasy.
Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.
I cannot stand your patronising, condescending tone and find it irritating to converse with you.
I think this is a good thing for Ukip, if you think differently you can lay me a bet?
Wow issues much? Please feel free not to converse with me if it winds you up that much, we'll both manage.
And the only bet I ever had with you I lost. I am tempted, however, this time. I'm happy to bet you £10 that UKIP won't win Stoke.
Is it an issue to find someone extremely annoying? If so I have them!
Ok what price are you offering?
I am offering an old-fashioned amateur bet - if UKIP win I give you £10, if UKIP don't win you give me £10.
Oh ok I'll pass, the bookies and exchanges are offering £15 for £10
But it's free money.
Who said that? I said it was 50/50
OK if you're scared that's fine.
If UKIP win I'll pay you £15. If they lose you pay me £10.
Ok I'm scared let's not bother
Funny how folks are different, if someone told me they found me irritating, I'd try to be less irritating!
I was lurking during that conversation and had no interest in it, except as a spectator sport like going to the Zoo.
To me it seemed the sort of thing men talk about when they get together, and no need for me to be a wet blanket.
I am myself somewhat left-leaning, though less so than you, I expect.
The sort of debate that interests me about left/right differences and gender issues is that the left make the noise about equality and don't much vote for women unless they've no option and the right just allow a free-for-all through which women can & do fight their way to the top.
Regardless of politics, I prefer an approach that works.
Any woman of sense needs only to look at what happened to Harriet Harman to realise that her own chances as a Labour politician are doomed from the outset. Or the shambles the Mr Corbyn produced when deciding his first Shadow Cabinet - no woman's name apparently entered his mind, never mind his ShadCab, until someone pointed it out, far too late to disguise the fact.
If a woman wants to join a boys' club, where women are the groupies, she can't do better than join the Labour party (or, from what I read, any of the other left organisations).
I don't understand why the younger women can't see it, but there are always plenty of candidates for the lower rungs of the ladder.
(All thoroughly off-topic, for which I apologise, and Good afternoon, everyone.)
On what you've said: I agree that (at least in a Britain) there seems to be more opportunities for women as individuals to get the top in a right wing party. However I have noticed that many righties who will vote for a woman leader seem reluctant to acknowledge structural inequalities that affect every day women in society.
Does you think "progressive" parties like Labour and the LibDems will ever have a female leader?
Yes.
Labour's already had female deputies and acting leaders. I reckon if it hadn't been for Brown's bully boys in the 2000s a woman would have made it to be full leader by now. It'd be interesting to know if people more akin to internal Labour politics think the union connection has harmed the case of women in the party?
The Lib Dems are a more interesting case IMO. Lord Rennard's antics would not have helped, and neither would the 2015 GE disaster that culled so many MPs.
Likewise, it'd be good to analyse why two women have been Conservative leader, and PM. Perhaps many members care more about competence than gender?
Women prefer men richer than them, even when the women are rich enough themselves. Indeed they actually have more and better orgasms with richer men, as I can personally attest, as a rich man.
Also, we know from pornsite data what sex women want, and it isn't gentle canoodling. They like what men want, and they like the hot filthy stuff, where the women get a right seeing-to.
"Even more interesting than who is having sex, but how. Inquisitor reports: "Women also show a strong preference for sado-maschistic adult video viewing, with the terms 'rough sex' and 'bondage' both appearing in the top 16 search terms for women, but not for men." I'm not shocked that these are popular search topics for women, but I wouldn't have guessed that it was that much more popular for women than for men."
More women like bondage and rough sex THAN MEN. And that isn't porn with the woman tying up the man, or giving him a pegging. That's sex with the woman getting spanked, hogtied and ball-gagged.
Taller men is a physical preference, not a personality preference. I like taller guys, but if I meet a 5'8 guy who I like I'm not going to turn him down based on him not being over 6'0.
On your second point: that's one 'controversial' study. No evidence from your link that it's findings are accepted by the scientific community as a whole.
The porn example is flawed because most women don't watch porn. The vast majority of porn watchers are men, and a range of studies show this.
What women want is a lover who makes them feel desirable and desired, who makes them feel good - more than good, absolutely BLOODY WONDERFUL - and who has some imagination and a sense of humour.
It's not hard, chaps.
Well, Mrs Free, I have been with Herself for forty years and we have been married for more than thirty. So I probably know her and her thinking as well as any human knows another. Yet, and we are leaving the bedroom aside here, pretty much weekly she comes up with some idea that leaves me reeling, and thinking "Where did that come from?". Lots of shared laughter and respect as well as love (often masquerading as lust), and working cats, seem to me to be the key to success in a shared life.
I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50
Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning
Hmm there's a lot of Daily Mail outrage over the decision. But in the cold light of day I see no reason why the good burghers of Stoke won't be as aware of what it actually signified as those of us on here.
Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.
If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.
Well quite obviously I didn't see that.
Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.
I cannot stand your patronising, condescending tone and find it irritating to converse with you.
I think this is a good thing for Ukip, if you think differently you can lay me a bet?
Wow issues much? Please feel free not to converse with me if it winds you up that much, we'll both manage.
And the only bet I ever had with you I lost. I am tempted, however, this time. I'm happy to bet you £10 that UKIP won't win Stoke.
Is it an issue to find someone extremely annoying? If so I have them!
Ok what price are you offering?
I am offering an old-fashioned amateur bet - if UKIP win I give you £10, if UKIP don't win you give me £10.
Oh ok I'll pass, the bookies and exchanges are offering £15 for £10
But it's free money.
Who said that? I said it was 50/50
OK if you're scared that's fine.
If UKIP win I'll pay you £15. If they lose you pay me £10.
Ok I'm scared let's not bother
Funny how folks are different, if someone told me they found me irritating, I'd try to be less irritating!
I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50
Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning
Hmm there's a lot of Daily Mail outrage over the decision. But in the cold light of day I see no reason why the good burghers of Stoke won't be as aware of what it actually signified as those of us on here.
Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.
If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.
Well quite obviously I didn't see that.
What I find strange is that the SC judgement is pretty straightforward. Parliament must be consulted, for valid constitutional reasons, all with precedent, before A50 can be triggered.
Easy peasy.
Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.
I cannot stand your patronising, condescending tone and find it irritating to converse with you.
I think this is a good thing for Ukip, if you think differently you can lay me a bet?
Wow issues much? Please feel free not to converse with me if it winds you up that much, we'll both manage.
And the only bet I ever had with you I lost. I am tempted, however, this time. I'm happy to bet you £10 that UKIP won't win Stoke.
Is it an issue to find someone extremely annoying? If so I have them!
Ok what price are you offering?
I am offering an old-fashioned amateur bet - if UKIP win I give you £10, if UKIP don't win you give me £10.
Oh ok I'll pass, the bookies and exchanges are offering £15 for £10
But it's free money.
Who said that? I said it was 50/50
OK if you're scared that's fine.
If UKIP win I'll pay you £15. If they lose you pay me £10.
Ok I'm scared let's not bother
Funny how folks are different, if someone told me they found me irritating, I'd try to be less irritating!
“So now we know that the Scottish Parliament won’t get a say, that the Scottish Government’s options paper is likely to be rejected and that a Hard Brexit will cost around eighty thousand jobs and a two thousand pound drop in the average income in Scotland. It is hard to see any other option than putting the choice back in the hands of voters in Scotland, giving people the choice of an independent future in Europe, and rejecting the angry and isolated Britain the Tories are planning.”
Interesting fact: Staffordshire, which includes Stoke-on-Trent, has swung more from Labour to Conservative over the last 20 years than any other county in England.
@PaulBrandITV: Understand there are around a dozen Tory MPs already reluctant to vote for a simple two line Brexit bill - they want full blown bill instead
A dozen... they just need another hundred... prepared to vote it down even when it might actually go down rather than this stupid signalling
I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50
Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning
Hmm there's a lot of Dailsignified as those of us on here.
Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.
If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.
Well quite obviously I didn't see that.
What I find strange is that the SC judgement is pretty straightforward. Parliament must be consulted, for valid constitutional reasons, all with precedent, before A50 can be triggered.
Easy peasy.
Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.
I cannot stand your patronising, condescending tone and find it irritating to converse with you.
I think this is a good thing for Ukip, if you think differently you can lay me a bet?
Wow issues much? Please feel free not to converse with me if it winds you up that much, we'll both manage.
And the only bet I ever had with you I lost. I am tempted, however, this time. I'm happy to bet you £10 that UKIP won't win Stoke.
Is it an issue to find someone extremely annoying? If so I have them!
Ok what price are you offering?
I am offering an old-fashioned amateur bet - if UKIP win I give you £10, if UKIP don't win you give me £10.
Oh ok I'll pass, the bookies and exchanges are offering £15 for £10
But it's free money.
Who said that? I said it was 50/50
OK if you're scared that's fine.
If UKIP win I'll pay you £15. If they lose you pay me £10.
Ok I'm scared let's not bother
Funny how folks are different, if someone told me they found me irritating, I'd try to be less irritating!
I was lurking during that conversation and had no interest in it, except as a spectator sport like going to the Zoo.
To me it seemed the sort of thing men talk about when they get together, and no need for me to be a wet blanket.
I am myself somewhat left-leaning, though less so than you, I expect.
The sort of debate that interests me about left/right differences and gender issues is that the left make the noise about equality and don't much vote for women unless they've no option and the right just allow a free-for-all through which women can & do fight their way to the top.
Regardless of politics, I prefer an approach that works.
Any woman of sense needs only to look at what happened to Harriet Harman to realise that her own chances as a Labour politician are doomed from the outset. Or the shambles the Mr Corbyn produced when deciding his first Shadow Cabinet - no woman's name apparently entered his mind, never mind his ShadCab, until someone pointed it out, far too late to disguise the fact.
If a woman wants to join a boys' club, where women are the groupies, she can't do better than join the Labour party (or, from what I read, any of the other left organisations).
I don't understand why the younger women can't see it, but there are always plenty of candidates for the lower rungs of the ladder.
(All thoroughly off-topic, for which I apologise, and Good afternoon, everyone.)
On what you've said: I agree that (at least in a Britain) there seems to be more opportunities for women as individuals to get the top in a right wing party. However I have noticed that many righties who will vote for a woman leader seem reluctant to acknowledge structural inequalities that affect every day women in society.
In the US has 16 female democratic senators and 5 female republican. Democrats are the only party to have nominated a woman for President. Nancy Pelosi is the first and only female speaker of the house.
Germany, Canada, Slovakia, Croatia and South Korea have had women in top political role. (Right of politics) France (PM), Chile, Brazil, Scotland (?), Australia, Norway, Iceland, Denmark (Left) Ireland has both for President, New Zealand has both for PM.
Globally feels as though picture is fairly even...
Looks like getting an Indy Ref II bill through Holyrood will be a piece of piss.
Indeed. The only thing stopping it is Nicola.
Who is feart.
Do you want a piece of 'No indy ref called before end of 2018' betting action? All you've got to say is 'I agree'.
Unionists 55% Bravehearts 45%
Scots who voted to stay in UK: 2,001,926 Scots who voted to stay in EU: 1,661,191
English Unionists and migrant Scots bleating about Scottish constitutional matters are in the position of eunuchs complaining about the cost of Viagra.
I was lurking during that conversation and had no interest in it, except as a spectator sport like going to the Zoo.
To me it seemed the sort of thing men talk about when they get together, and no need for me to be a wet blanket.
I am myself somewhat left-leaning, though less so than you, I expect.
The sort of debate that interests me about left/right differences and gender issues is that the left make the noise about equality and don't much vote for women unless they've no option and the right just allow a free-for-all through which women can & do fight their way to the top.
Regardless of politics, I prefer an approach that works.
Any woman of sense needs only to look at what happened to Harriet Harman to realise that her own chances as a Labour politician are doomed from the outset. Or the shambles the Mr Corbyn produced when deciding his first Shadow Cabinet - no woman's name apparently entered his mind, never mind his ShadCab, until someone pointed it out, far too late to disguise the fact.
If a woman wants to join a boys' club, where women are the groupies, she can't do better than join the Labour party (or, from what I read, any of the other left organisations).
I don't understand why the younger women can't see it, but there are always plenty of candidates for the lower rungs of the ladder.
(All thoroughly off-topic, for which I apologise, and Good afternoon, everyone.)
On what you've said: I agree that (at least in a Britain) there seems to be more opportunities for women as individuals to get the top in a right wing party. However I have noticed that many righties who will vote for a woman leader seem reluctant to acknowledge structural inequalities that affect every day women in society.
In the US has 16 female democratic senators and 5 female republican. Democrats are the only party to have nominated a woman for President. Nancy Pelosi is the first and only female speaker of the house.
Germany, Canada, Slovakia, Croatia and South Korea have had women in top political role. (Right of politics) France (PM), Chile, Brazil, Scotland (?), Australia, Norway, Iceland, Denmark (Left) Ireland has both for President, New Zealand has both for PM.
Globally feels as though picture is fairly even...
I'm not surprised at the stats for the US. They definitely seem to be well ahead of the GOP on the issues of women/minorities. I recall reading that some the left wing parties in Germany such as the Greens, 'The Left' have had female leaders. Not sure whether that's still the situation.
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
But if the flag waver also believed in white supremacy, you'd have good reason to be suspicious. And this Muslim woman appears to support sharia law. That is to say: she supports a system which says women are intrinsically inferior to men, the way Nazis believed Jews were intrinsically inferior to Germans
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
She doesn't support Sharia law. She's a civil rights activist who speaks for women's rights, minority rights and gay rights.
But it suits SeanT if she supported Sharia Law. She also supported Bernie Sanders, who is a Jew. So you can't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I'd be mortified if I spread fake news saying someone supported ISIS. Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
Looking at today's judgement, while it may not be what the Government was hoping for, I think it may actually turn out quite well for them:
Firstly, by establishing that there are powerful forces looking to block Brexit, it makes the Eurosceptics hug closer to Theresa May and she can portray herself as the champion of Brexit. Secondly, by bringing a bill to parliament it forces all the parties and MPs to take a clear line. This looks very difficult for Labour: if they go for a three line whip, then they may get rebels and resignations. If they go for a free vote, then it makes Corbyn look weak and the headlines become Labour splits.
I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50
Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning
Won't the Article 50 Enabling Bill will have become an Act by the time of the by-election, with Labour having voted for it?
Maybe. We'll see how many do vote for it. The ones that don't will be on every leaflet/internet ad.
90% of Tories will vote for it, 9% will abstain; 1% will oppose 66% of Labour will vote for it; 20% will abstain; 14% will oppose 0% of LD will vote for it; 45% will abstain; 55% will oppose The SNP will probably all oppose, or will attempt to stick amendments on it.
But however you cut it, I can't see a majority of less than 450 for an Article 50 Enabling Bill.
I think you overestimate the "love" for Scotland. It's in pretty short supply south of Carlisle (fine for the SNP that of course). Even in Cardiff during Indyref, the general view amongst my (totally unscientific of course) circle was, shall we say not exactly an expression of Celtic brotherly love.
Now I agree Scotland seems to be drifting away at present (that could change too of course, nothing is forever) and I think something new will have to be done (federal UK or whatever) post Brexit, if there is the will to keep it all stitched together in a new form.
However, I just don't see how on earth any sensible debate could genuinely be had till Brexit is 100% done nor that Scotland saying "Ok we're off if you Brexit" is really going to be the brake you think it will be on England (and Wales).
If England WANTS Scotland to leave the United Kingdom's gig is up. As a proportion there are probably more Scots strongly in favour of the Union than English. That certainly was the case prior to 1707, when the English government decided to carry out a very dodgy dynastic manoeuvre and thought they had better square the Scots first.
Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.
Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.
Every topic on here is dominated by men, as PB has never had a gender-balanced set of contributors in the 11-odd years I've been hanging around this den of iniquity.
I do agree that some of the lines of argument were bizarre. I find it sad that 'never kissed a Tory' is a thing, but most relationships need common views and interests in order to thrive, so it's just one of those things.
On your first point: it's true to say there are more male voices than female ones on this site - but I can still recall at least one/some female voice in most of the conversations I've read on here. With that conversation I recall there being no female voice to offer a perspective either way. I guess that was what I was getting at.
Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.
Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.
Every topic on here is dominated by men, as PB has never had a gender-balanced set of contributors in the 11-odd years I've been hanging around this den of iniquity.
I do agree that some of the lines of argument were bizarre. I find it sad that 'never kissed a Tory' is a thing, but most relationships need common views and interests in order to thrive, so it's just one of those things.
On your first point: it's true to say there are more male voices than female ones on this site - but I can still recall at least one/some female voice in most of the conversations I've read on here. With that conversation I recall there being no female voice to offer a perspective either way. I guess that was what I was getting at.
Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.
Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.
Every topic on here is dominated by men, as PB has never had a gender-balanced set of contributors in the 11-odd years I've been hanging around this den of iniquity.
I do agree that some of the lines of argument were bizarre. I find it sad that 'never kissed a Tory' is a thing, but most relationships need common views and interests in order to thrive, so it's just one of those things.
On your first point: it's true to say there are more male voices than female ones on this site - but I can still recall at least one/some female voice in most of the conversations I've read on here. With that conversation I recall there being no female voice to offer a perspective either way. I guess that was what I was getting at.
Looks like getting an Indy Ref II bill through Holyrood will be a piece of piss.
Indeed. The only thing stopping it is Nicola.
Who is feart.
Do you want a piece of 'No indy ref called before end of 2018' betting action? All you've got to say is 'I agree'.
Unionists 55% Bravehearts 45%
Scots who voted to stay in UK: 2,001,926 Scots who voted to stay in EU: 1,661,191
English Unionists and migrant Scots bleating about Scottish constitutional matters are in the position of eunuchs complaining about the cost of Viagra.
To coin a phrase.
Gratz for updating the bald men fighting over a comb simile.
Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.
Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.
Every topic on here is dominated by men, as PB has never had a gender-balanced set of contributors in the 11-odd years I've been hanging around this den of iniquity.
I do agree that some of the lines of argument were bizarre. I find it sad that 'never kissed a Tory' is a thing, but most relationships need common views and interests in order to thrive, so it's just one of those things.
On your first point: it's true to say there are more male voices than female ones on this site - but I can still recall at least one/some female voice in most of the conversations I've read on here. With that conversation I recall there being no female voice to offer a perspective either way. I guess that was what I was getting at.
Looking at today's judgement, while it may not be what the Government was hoping for, I think it may actually turn out quite well for them:
Firstly, by establishing that there are powerful forces looking to block Brexit, it makes the Eurosceptics hug closer to Theresa May and she can portray herself as the champion of Brexit. Secondly, by bringing a bill to parliament it forces all the parties and MPs to take a clear line. This looks very difficult for Labour: if they go for a three line whip, then they may get rebels and resignations. If they go for a free vote, then it makes Corbyn look weak and the headlines become Labour splits.
I would think the government is more than content, it is hard to imagine a better outcome for them.
They lost - not unexpected. They established the constitutional position, so are seen to act legally and with due process. The devolved powers appear to have been dealt with, which will remove a potential future stumbling block. Politically it will be difficult for Labour, LibDems will chase a position that only works in books that begin 'Once upon a time....' and UKIP have little to celebrate as A50 is on track and a hard Brexit is forecast, so what are they for? The government will claim to be implementing the will of the people. The rich (Branson etc), Europhiles (Mandleson etc), The Famous (Geldoff etc) will continue to carp from the press, TV and sidelines managing to create a void between the rich and privileged and the Conservative party, which helps public perception of the Tory Party. These carping groups will be busy alienating themselves from the average Joe and Jo in the street with constant whinges.
The down side for the government today? Trident is off the news? Tim Farron is in Cornwall, so only making a small fuax pas? They lost the case but won the war?
Good day in the office. Expectations managed, we knew they would come second in the case.
Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.
Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.
Every topic on here is dominated by men, as PB has never had a gender-balanced set of contributors in the 11-odd years I've been hanging around this den of iniquity.
I do agree that some of the lines of argument were bizarre. I find it sad that 'never kissed a Tory' is a thing, but most relationships need common views and interests in order to thrive, so it's just one of those things.
On your first point: it's true to say there are more male voices than female ones on this site - but I can still recall at least one/some female voice in most of the conversations I've read on here. With that conversation I recall there being no female voice to offer a perspective either way. I guess that was what I was getting at.
Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.
Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.
Every topic on here is dominated by men, as PB has never had a gender-balanced set of contributors in the 11-odd years I've been hanging around this den of iniquity.
I do agree that some of the lines of argument were bizarre. I find it sad that 'never kissed a Tory' is a thing, but most relationships need common views and interests in order to thrive, so it's just one of those things.
On your first point: it's true to say there are more male voices than female ones on this site - but I can still recall at least one/some female voice in most of the conversations I've read on here. With that conversation I recall there being no female voice to offer a perspective either way. I guess that was what I was getting at.
With the predictability of an atomic clock, Nicola Sturgeon has come out today condemning the Supreme Court which this morning reminded her that foreign affairs are not devolved, so Brexit is handled by the UK government on behalf of everyone in the UK. She concludes that ‘Scotland’s voice is not being heard and not being listened to within the UK’. She started wanting to find compromise about Brexit, she said, trying to be reasonable. But she – or, rather Scotland because they are of course the same thing – has come up against ‘hard-right Brexit opinion’.
In fact, the SNP is not coming up against the UK or the Tories but basic EU law. Diplomats in Brussels are baffled as to why the SNP are even talking about a non-member state either being in the single market or having their own relationship with the EU. It is a charade, given the constitutional impossibility of the demands.
Genuine legal process question: What are the rules about adding amendments to bills? Can the 'wreckers ' add what they want to a simple A50 bill? Can the government say 'no we're only voting on the 2 liner'? How does the process for deciding exactly what is being voted on play out?
With the predictability of an atomic clock, Nicola Sturgeon has come out today condemning the Supreme Court which this morning reminded her that foreign affairs are not devolved, so Brexit is handled by the UK government on behalf of everyone in the UK. She concludes that ‘Scotland’s voice is not being heard and not being listened to within the UK’. She started wanting to find compromise about Brexit, she said, trying to be reasonable. But she – or, rather Scotland because they are of course the same thing – has come up against ‘hard-right Brexit opinion’.
In fact, the SNP is not coming up against the UK or the Tories but basic EU law. Diplomats in Brussels are baffled as to why the SNP are even talking about a non-member state either being in the single market or having their own relationship with the EU. It is a charade, given the constitutional impossibility of the demands.
At some point the Scots will surely tire of Sturgeon, and the Nats, and their weird, eerie, tediously fake contortions over sovereignty and the EU and all that. But not yet, it seems.
SNP: we want to stop being told what to do by a city hundreds of miles away. And instead be told what to do by someone even further away.
Genuine legal process question: What are the rules about adding amendments to bills? Can the 'wreckers ' add what they want to a simple A50 bill? Can the government say 'no we're only voting on the 2 liner'? How does the process for deciding exactly what is being voted on play out?
Because it will not be a finance bill, I don;t think they can put forward amendments with financial implications.
With the predictability of an atomic clock, Nicola Sturgeon has come out today condemning the Supreme Court which this morning reminded her that foreign affairs are not devolved, so Brexit is handled by the UK government on behalf of everyone in the UK. She concludes that ‘Scotland’s voice is not being heard and not being listened to within the UK’. She started wanting to find compromise about Brexit, she said, trying to be reasonable. But she – or, rather Scotland because they are of course the same thing – has come up against ‘hard-right Brexit opinion’.
In fact, the SNP is not coming up against the UK or the Tories but basic EU law. Diplomats in Brussels are baffled as to why the SNP are even talking about a non-member state either being in the single market or having their own relationship with the EU. It is a charade, given the constitutional impossibility of the demands.
At some point the Scots will surely tire of Sturgeon, and the Nats, and their weird, eerie, tediously fake contortions over sovereignty and the EU and all that. But not yet, it seems.
SNP: we want to stop being told what to do by a city hundreds of miles away. And instead be told what to do by someone even further away.
Genuine legal process question: What are the rules about adding amendments to bills? Can the 'wreckers ' add what they want to a simple A50 bill? Can the government say 'no we're only voting on the 2 liner'? How does the process for deciding exactly what is being voted on play out?
Because it will not be a finance bill, I don;t think they can put forward amendments with financial implications.
Helpful - but what about eg trying to tie down labour laws? CAn the government simply refuse and put the bill wording they want to the vote?
With the predictability of an atomic clock, Nicola Sturgeon has come out today condemning the Supreme Court which this morning reminded her that foreign affairs are not devolved, so Brexit is handled by the UK government on behalf of everyone in the UK. She concludes that ‘Scotland’s voice is not being heard and not being listened to within the UK’. She started wanting to find compromise about Brexit, she said, trying to be reasonable. But she – or, rather Scotland because they are of course the same thing – has come up against ‘hard-right Brexit opinion’.
In fact, the SNP is not coming up against the UK or the Tories but basic EU law. Diplomats in Brussels are baffled as to why the SNP are even talking about a non-member state either being in the single market or having their own relationship with the EU. It is a charade, given the constitutional impossibility of the demands.
Atomic clocks may be reliable but the earth's speed of rotation is slowing down. So atomic clocks have to be adjusted to bring them into line with the earth day measure.
Monsieur Macron is in the FT today, calling for a sovereign European superstate, and combined European defence.
The EU could be a very different beast in a few years. I wonder if Scots really want to join this.
A combined Europe defence? If it inbludes the French - who have not won a war of any note for over a century, then it is doomed. If it includes the Dutch, they will let their enemies kill civilians and if it includes the Italians, they will surrender before the French (who at least fight)
I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50
Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning
Best of luck, I'm with Mike on this one
Libs can't win Cons aren't trying
I'm sure the market will move ukips way further
Remember that the same was true in Oldham West, Libs behind and the Tories deliberately slowboated.
I've never thought that. In fact I've long argued on here that British eurosceptics don't understand the continental European mindset - how attached many are in Europe to the EU as a project and the euro as a currency. Faragistes who predict a dissolution are deluded. Most Europeans (though not all) and virtually all the mainstream European political classes, are dedicated to preserving their Union.
Equally, the Europeans do not understand the British (or English!) mindset. They see our departure as some nostalgic quest for Empire, or some weird xenophobic outburst, it is neither. It is an ancient and culturally self confident nation seeking to govern itself, once more, as it did VERY successfully for 1500 years before the Treaty of Rome.
I detect a certain envy in some Celtic nationalists that the English actually had the bollocks to go and do it.
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
But if the flag waver also believed in white supremacy, you'd have good reason to be suspicious. And this Muslim woman appears to support sharia law. That is to say: she supports a system which says women are intrinsically inferior to men, the way Nazis believed Jews were intrinsically inferior to Germans
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
She doesn't support Sharia law. She's a civil rights activist who speaks for women's rights, minority rights and gay rights.
But it suits SeanT if she supported Sharia Law. She also supported Bernie Sanders, who is a Jew. So you can't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I'd be mortified if I spread fake news saying someone supported ISIS. Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
She has tweeted comments apparently in favour of sharia law. They might have been ironic, but we can only go by what she wrote. And they were positive about sharia law.
So she apparently supports sharia law, which is like saying you support racism, or Nazism, only sharia degrades and devalues women as being naturally inferior, rather than blacks or Jews, so it's weirdly OK with the liberal-Left
Or you know you could go by the fact she has a career as a civil rights activist, has campaigned for gay rights, has spoken at churches and synagogues, votes for Jewish socialists, has written plenty of opeds in favour of religious freedom, has public speeches on YouTube etc...
But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
Equally, the Europeans do not understand the British (or English!) mindset. They see our departure as some nostalgic quest for Empire, or some weird xenophobic outburst, it is neither. It is an ancient and culturally self confident nation seeking to govern itself, once more, as it did VERY successfully for 1500 years before the Treaty of Rome.
I see your self confident nation, and raise you a Hannanite CANZUK cultural cringe and an ingratiating Farage at Trump Tower.
Naturally the people who actually delivered the victory don't care about any of this. They just think we're full.
I've never thought that. In fact I've long argued on here that British eurosceptics don't understand the continental European mindset - how attached many are in Europe to the EU as a project and the euro as a currency. Faragistes who predict a dissolution are deluded. Most Europeans (though not all) and virtually all the mainstream European political classes, are dedicated to preserving their Union.
Equally, the Europeans do not understand the British (or English!) mindset. They see our departure as some nostalgic quest for Empire, or some weird xenophobic outburst, it is neither. It is an ancient and culturally self confident nation seeking to govern itself, once more, as it did VERY successfully for 1500 years before the Treaty of Rome.
I detect a certain envy in some Celtic nationalists that the English actually had the bollocks to go and do it.
I detect a certain dislocation in English Unionists who on the one hand sneer about those Scots who voted No in 2014 not having the bollocks to go and do it, yet depend on them to preserve their 'UK in aspic' identity.
I've never thought that. In fact I've long argued on here that British eurosceptics don't understand the continental European mindset - how attached many are in Europe to the EU as a project and the euro as a currency. Faragistes who predict a dissolution are deluded. Most Europeans (though not all) and virtually all the mainstream European political classes, are dedicated to preserving their Union.
Equally, the Europeans do not understand the British (or English!) mindset. They see our departure as some nostalgic quest for Empire, or some weird xenophobic outburst, it is neither. It is an ancient and culturally self confident nation seeking to govern itself, once more, as it did VERY successfully for 1500 years before the Treaty of Rome.
I detect a certain envy in some Celtic nationalists that the English actually had the bollocks to go and do it.
I detect a certain dislocation in English Unionists who on the one hand sneer about those Scots who voted No in 2014 not having the bollocks to go and do it, yet depend on them to preserve their 'UK in aspic' identity.
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
I've never thought that. In fact I've long argued on here that British eurosceptics don't understand the continental European mindset - how attached many are in Europe to the EU as a project and the euro as a currency. Faragistes who predict a dissolution are deluded. Most Europeans (though not all) and virtually all the mainstream European political classes, are dedicated to preserving their Union.
Equally, the Europeans do not understand the British (or English!) mindset. They see our departure as some nostalgic quest for Empire, or some weird xenophobic outburst, it is neither. It is an ancient and culturally self confident nation seeking to govern itself, once more, as it did VERY successfully for 1500 years before the Treaty of Rome.
I detect a certain envy in some Celtic nationalists that the English actually had the bollocks to go and do it.
I detect a certain dislocation in English Unionists who on the one hand sneer about those Scots who voted No in 2014 not having the bollocks to go and do it, yet depend on them to preserve their 'UK in aspic' identity.
But you didn't though, did you? You didn't have the bollocks.
We did.
Probably a good thing that (along with so many others) you've relegated your UK identity to a minor league.
I've never thought that. In fact I've long argued on here that British eurosceptics don't understand the I detect a certain envy in some Celtic nationalists that the English actually had the bollocks to go and do it.
I detect a certain dislocation in English Unionists who on the one hand sneer about those Scots who voted No in 2014 not having the bollocks to go and do it, yet depend on them to preserve their 'UK in aspic' identity.
I have a more interesting question for you, to move on from our gossipy bickering.
Is there a level of European Union at which even the Scot Nats would baulk, and say, Whoah, we're just leaving one oppressive union for another, potentially even more oppressive?
e.g. If Europe became Macron's superstate, with a directly elected president, and parliament, and commission, and a single currency, and one army, and harmonised taxes, migration policy, etc, would the Scots still want to leave Britain and join it? If so, why???? It seems nuts.
If not, where do you draw the line?
It mystifies me why Scot Nats don't look to the Icelandic model, if they are determined to leave the UK. A small, successful, independent non-EU state. Last time I was there, a few months ago, they all seemed rather happy.
There may be a level of European union that I or even Scott P might baulk at, but it would have to go quite a distance to reduce Scotland to the level of sovereignty it currently enjoys. In any case I stick by the the first principle, that whatever we embrace or baulk at, or fall into sluggish passivity about, it should be decided by us and not be imposed upon us.
Comments
She's a civil rights activist who speaks for women's rights, minority rights and gay rights.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/nyregion/linda-sarsour-is-a-brooklyn-homegirl-in-a-hijab.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38717966/how-this-song-became-the-anthem-of-the-womensmarch-against-donald-trump
They have got a very catchy tune to march to!
If UKIP win I'll pay you £15. If they lose you pay me £10.
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/823907617986711552
Didn't he expect to be called in any debate on that Supreme Court ruling?
Just my opinion.
Funny how folks are different, if someone told me they found me irritating, I'd try to be less irritating!
Labour's already had female deputies and acting leaders. I reckon if it hadn't been for Brown's bully boys in the 2000s a woman would have made it to be full leader by now. It'd be interesting to know if people more akin to internal Labour politics think the union connection has harmed the case of women in the party?
The Lib Dems are a more interesting case IMO. Lord Rennard's antics would not have helped, and neither would the 2015 GE disaster that culled so many MPs.
Likewise, it'd be good to analyse why two women have been Conservative leader, and PM. Perhaps many members care more about competence than gender?
You must have really smashed into UKIP seeing as you were backing Labour at my last count
And Lib Dems at 25s
https://twitter.com/patrickharvie/status/823902301203103745
“So now we know that the Scottish Parliament won’t get a say, that the Scottish Government’s options paper is likely to be rejected and that a Hard Brexit will cost around eighty thousand jobs and a two thousand pound drop in the average income in Scotland. It is hard to see any other option than putting the choice back in the hands of voters in Scotland, giving people the choice of an independent future in Europe, and rejecting the angry and isolated Britain the Tories are planning.”
Who is feart.
All you've got to say is 'I agree'.
Bravehearts 45%
Seeing as they're 40/70 you look to be in good shape.
Edit 14/1
No...*I* am irritating.
Scots who voted to stay in EU: 1,661,191
Democrats are the only party to have nominated a woman for President.
Nancy Pelosi is the first and only female speaker of the house.
Germany, Canada, Slovakia, Croatia and South Korea have had women in top political role. (Right of politics)
France (PM), Chile, Brazil, Scotland (?), Australia, Norway, Iceland, Denmark (Left)
Ireland has both for President, New Zealand has both for PM.
Globally feels as though picture is fairly even...
To coin a phrase.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-problem-with-neoliberalism-53062.html#comment-429351
The law is what courts say it is.
Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
Owen thingy to vote against A50.
LOOK, a huge fcking squirrel!'
Firstly, by establishing that there are powerful forces looking to block Brexit, it makes the Eurosceptics hug closer to Theresa May and she can portray herself as the champion of Brexit.
Secondly, by bringing a bill to parliament it forces all the parties and MPs to take a clear line. This looks very difficult for Labour: if they go for a three line whip, then they may get rebels and resignations. If they go for a free vote, then it makes Corbyn look weak and the headlines become Labour splits.
66% of Labour will vote for it; 20% will abstain; 14% will oppose
0% of LD will vote for it; 45% will abstain; 55% will oppose
The SNP will probably all oppose, or will attempt to stick amendments on it.
But however you cut it, I can't see a majority of less than 450 for an Article 50 Enabling Bill.
They lost - not unexpected.
They established the constitutional position, so are seen to act legally and with due process.
The devolved powers appear to have been dealt with, which will remove a potential future stumbling block.
Politically it will be difficult for Labour, LibDems will chase a position that only works in books that begin 'Once upon a time....' and UKIP have little to celebrate as A50 is on track and a hard Brexit is forecast, so what are they for?
The government will claim to be implementing the will of the people.
The rich (Branson etc), Europhiles (Mandleson etc), The Famous (Geldoff etc) will continue to carp from the press, TV and sidelines managing to create a void between the rich and privileged and the Conservative party, which helps public perception of the Tory Party. These carping groups will be busy alienating themselves from the average Joe and Jo in the street with constant whinges.
The down side for the government today? Trident is off the news? Tim Farron is in Cornwall, so only making a small fuax pas? They lost the case but won the war?
Good day in the office. Expectations managed, we knew they would come second in the case.
No idea who Sally is.
In fact, the SNP is not coming up against the UK or the Tories but basic EU law. Diplomats in Brussels are baffled as to why the SNP are even talking about a non-member state either being in the single market or having their own relationship with the EU. It is a charade, given the constitutional impossibility of the demands.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nicola-sturgeons-brexit-charade-continues/
Mr. T, quite.
An English Parliament, which some of us have wanted for a while, would also be a good way of actually answering the West Lothian Question.
And instead be told what to do by someone even further away.
They'll rEU the day.
©PB 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 etc..
The local Ukippers are loons :-)
Didn't do UKIP any favours.
English LEAVE 53.3
English REMAIN 46.7
Welsh LEAVE 52.5
Welsh REMAIN 47.5
Two home nations were that close!
But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
Naturally the people who actually delivered the victory don't care about any of this. They just think we're full.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/24/presidential-candidate-francois-fillon-calls-france-ignore-schengen/
Fillon is interesting though. He campaigned against the Maastricht treaty so he's arguably more Eurosceptic than mainstream Tories of the 90s vintage.