Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Well, seeing as how most modern democracies employ various aspects of Socialism to varying degrees, such as free to use healthcare, education and legal representation etc, shall we instead look at those nations which don't?
Phew, so we're all socialists now. That's a relief because a few days ago people were arguing that the UK had shifted to the right....shudders...
But there is shocking dishonesty in the line, leave and find a party that is better suited to your ideals.
Why have the cuckoos chosen the current labour party when it doesn't represent their views? Because they already have representation - 209 of them. Chosen in a democratic process to represent the labour views of those in their constituencies. But guess what, most of those democratically appointed representatives have no faith in their leader, nor do many union members, nor does most of the population. So the answer? Clean them out and replace with a self-selected group that represents a much smaller minority of the population.
Cuckoo, cuckoo....
Entryist: this is what it means to me. Someone who joins an organisation with the sole intent of radically modifying it to suit their own views. Contrast this to someone who joins a political party because they agree with its policies and wishes to support it in those endeavours.
TMH has it above, if Momentum stood as a politcal party it would finish nowhere, behind even the Greens. Thats why they are seeking to take over the Labour Party to hijack their infrastructure and MPs.
jambalaya - Member
...Momentum stood as a politcal party it would finish nowhere, behind even the Greens. Thats why they are seeking to take over the Labour Party to hijack their infrastructure and MPs.
But is it hi-jacking when they are trying to return it to its original values?
I'd say it's more like trying to get the pirates off your ship and get it back on course. 🙂
Umm - Somalia has a pretty laissez-faire political system with minimal government interference in business.
...and negative net immigration.
...and negative net immigration.
There ya go - a Brexiter's dream!! Forget Switzerland and Norway as role models!!
But is it hi-jacking when they are trying to return it to its original values?
Freedom for Ireland?
A levy on capital?
Universal suffrage?
"Cuckoo, cuckoo...."
Keep saying that, repeatedly. It makes you look realy clever.
"Phew, so we're all socialists now. That's a relief because a few days ago people were arguing that the UK had shifted to the right....shudders..."
Not noticed just how much things like health care and education have been privatised/made far more expensive? No?
Universal free healthcare and education are Socialist principles, and the introduction of these in the UK led to a fairer and more democratic society. Britain was a better place because of the introduction of these Socialist policies (which the Right vehemently opposed). Ironically, Britain left to the tories/right will end up needing such Socialism once more to get itself out of the mire.
"Why have the cuckoos chosen the current labour party when it doesn't represent their views?"
The 'cuckoos', as you call them, might just want to see the Labour party returned back where it belongs on the political spectrum, on the left. The only 'cuckoos' in the Labour party are the Blairites and right wingers, who dragged it away from where it belongs.
The only 'cuckoos' in the Labour party are the Blairites and right wingers, who dragged it away from where it belongs.
Minimum wage?
Capped/maximum working hours?
Both promised in LP 1918 election manifesto - finally delivered by Blair - how's that for dragging it back to where it belongs?
I really do love all these Labour Party evangelists for whom history seems to begin sometime in the mid eighties 😆
"finally delivered by Blair"
Because Tony Blair introduced the minimum wage etc all by himself, with no input from trade unions and myriad other groups and Labour members who'd been campaigning for it for years? Oh right. 🙄
Don't be daft. You can only mention Blair if you have the words' Iraq' and 'war criminal' in the same sentence. Thems the rules. Its the only thing he did, apparently.
Just listened to Jezza's leadership campaign launch speech. Stirring stuff. And not at all like listening to the treasurer of a pub bowling club reading out the minutes of the last meeting.
As he claimed the credit for the victory in the London Mayoral election, I'm sure I heard Sadiq Khan spit his tea all over his keyboard, then commence arrangements to have him killed 😀
Meanwhile in further Labour 'you couldn't make it up' news, according to Dianne Abbot, Jezza's absolutely woeful performance at PMQ's isn't his fault
Much as it pains me to agree with her, I see her point - there's not an orator in the world who wouldn't look rubbish when their own side sit in sullen sulky silence, speaking against anyone who gets cheered to the rafters with every word they say.
"Its the only thing he did, apparently."
It's the thing he'll be most remembered for.
Why don't you write to Tony, and tell him how upset you are that the nasty mean Jeremy Corbyn has hijacked your party? I'm sure he'll listen to you. 😆
"As he claimed the credit for the victory in the London Mayoral election"
He didn't, but keep believing your own bullshit. Be careful you don't drown in it though.
Keep saying that, repeatedly. It makes you look realy clever.
Why thank you. Cuckoo, cuckoo...
Not noticed just how much things like health care and education have been privatised/made far more expensive? No?
Really? Have we abandoned health free at the point of delivery? What percentage of the UK population is educated in the private sector (including or excluding the 1/3 on bursaries)? But they have become more expensive true, a challenge when you commit to protecting them even as swivelled eyed RW loonies.
Universal free healthcare and education are Socialist principles, and the introduction of these in the UK led to a fairer and more democratic society. Britain was a better place because of the introduction of these Socialist policies (which the Right vehemently opposed).
Indeed, the characteristic of mixed economies is that they hopefully share the best aspects of both ends of the political spectrum. That's one reason why they work so well and why people vote for centrist parties that advocate such a system. Ironic that among the most vociferous opponents of the NHS were the BMA, but that's another story.
Ironically, Britain left to the tories/right will end up needing such Socialism once more to get itself out of the mire.
As in '83?
The 'cuckoos', as you call them, might just want to see the Labour party returned back where it belongs on the political spectrum, on the left. The only 'cuckoos' in the Labour party are the Blairites and right wingers, who dragged it away from where it belongs.
Right on comrade!
"Have we abandoned health free at the point of delivery?"
The privatisation of many parts of the NHS has led to a situation where the less 'profitable' sectors are increasingly underfunded to a point of near-collapse, meaning many don't get the treatment they need. Take a look at mental heath provision, for example. It's absolutely shocking (and then we wonder why nutters murder members of Parliament).
"But they have become more expensive true, a challenge when you commit to protecting them even as swivelled eyed RW loonies."
Yet we can afford Trident?
"As in '83?"
As in the period immediately following WW2.
"Right on comrade!"
Ah, that's what Lefties are supposed to say, is it? What do right-wingers shout? 'Sieg Heil'?
The privatisation of many parts of the NHS has led to a situation where the less 'profitable' sectors are increasingly underfunded to a point of near-collapse, meaning many don't get the treatment they need.
Oh I see. Missed that and don't even understand the logic. But if you say so.
Take a look at mental heath provision, for example. It's absolutely shocking (and then we wonder why nutters murder members of Parliament).
Oh, shall we blame the Toires for Jo Cox's awful murder?
Trident? What does the Labour Party and the Unions say? Can't recall.
Fine by me if you ignore the 83 manifesto and result. Fail to learn the lessons of history....
Its certainly an interesting thread so far and quite an education as to how the lefties and far lefties are all basing their differing views.
I just wonder with such intransigence on both sides.....where it will end? One question I'd like to ask Ernie is....Where do you see the LP in 5 years time, in terms of leader and number of MP's in Parliament?
RA on the intransigence of both sides, you might agree with
The institutional aims of the Labour Party are unclear. There is now a battle for the stricken party’s soul. It will be fought out between traditional socialists and social-democratic modernisers. But it will be a fight over an organisation that has already lost its direction and has no clear way forward. Both Blair and Corbyn bear some responsibility for this crisis.
the characteristic of mixed economies is that they hopefully share the best aspects of both ends of the political spectrum.
Exactly any economy with too much of one side or the other is bound to fail. In the UK public and private interact at almost all levels, be it health care, housing, energy or transport.
Take a look at mental heath provision, for example. It's absolutely shocking
Mental health is a pretty poor example as it had never been something the NHS does well. In the past it went along the lines of a person being taken to a mental health 'hospital' and the key being thrown away.
Where do you see the LP in 5 years time, in terms of leader and number of MP's in Parliament?
Prime minister Milne will have just taken over from PM Corbyn with a healthy majority of 600 in the people's commissariat, the new constitution following JC's win abolished the House of Lords and the role of the Monarchy
Prime Minister Milne hopes that all companies will produce a gender pay audit but the People's Labour Momentum Party isn't a company as defined by PM Corbyn
In the UK public and private interact at almost all levels, be it health care, housing, energy or transport
Of course they do and largely successfully. But much better to use nice emotive terms such a privatisation - such bllx even pre-dates the emergence of #posttruthpolitics
Mental health is a pretty poor example as it had never been something the NHS does well. In the past it went along the lines of a person being taken to a mental health 'hospital' and the key being thrown away.
Whereas now we put them on the opposition front benches in the house of commons. 😀
But much better to use nice emotive terms such a privatisation - such bllx even pre-dates the emergence of #posttruthpolitics
Overusing it to include anything that does not fit in with your [s]free marketer right wing capitalist agenda [/s] Impartial politically neutral stance
Still at least you swore and used a hashtag ..the epitome of calm and rational debate 😉
Mental health is a pretty poor example as it had never been something the NHS does well. In the past it went along the lines of a person being taken to a mental health 'hospital' and the key being thrown away.
Indeed - see my earlier point about history beginning sometime in the mid eighties.
The Ely and other similar scandals appalled the nation at the time, and led directly to care in the community due to the horrors (both in patient care and industrial relations) of institutionalisation
Universal free healthcare and education are [s]Socialist [/s] principles shared by all UK political parties,
FIFY. This is one reason Labour are in such trouble as their message of "we are the party to save the nhs and support education" is seen as total bllx.
Healthcare isn't free, its costs £130bn a year. Labour comitted to increase spending by £2bn the Tories by £8bn. Election winning policy that. The best way to help the NHS is to have a healthy economy, Labour had little credibility in that area in 2015 and they have even less now.
I personally think the NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a radical rethink and a much larger budget.
Also Labour need some aspirational policies. Currently they are offering nothing. Labour's "roots" and relationships with Trade Unions are widely seen as dated and irrelevant in todays modern world. The PMQ reference to Ogreave said it all. Labour can make that a manifesto commitment for 2020 and see how it resonates or not with the electorate.
The NHS was setup to provide universal health care at start and end of life. Its being asked to do many many things it was never intended to do. I think its quite bizarre we expect when we break a bone riding our bikes costing £1000's that the NHS fixes us for free. We have holiday medical insurance even when visiting EU countries, think about that. It doesn't stop us going does it ?
EDiT we cannot have a sensible conversation about the NHS as the politcial bs is off the charts, as soon as reform is even discussed its all "privitisng the nhs". As was covered during Brexit most Brits living in Spain prefer their health service as its better. Labour are a guilty as anyone for the mess we are in wrt healthcare
Yes TMH....that last paragraph seems to sum it up nicely. So won't be expecting a concise answer from Ernie anytime soon then!
well the bar for humour levels from UK politicians has just been lowered hugely by Corbyn rattling on about his cat...
So won't be expecting a concise answer from Ernie anytime soon then!
You best not expect any sort of answer anytime soon from me. I have no idea what the question is.
I am not following this thread in any detail, I just occasionally have a peek to make sure that it's still a completely pointless thread packed with Tory voters giving their opinions on what's best for the Labour Party, and that binners is still ranting endlessly about middle-class southerners with special dietary needs, or whatever it is that upsets a salt-of-the-earth working-class northerner like him.
I am not following this thread in any detail, I just occasionally have a peek to make sure that it's still a completely pointless thread
Posting history would suggest otherwise - but if true, why get involved in a "completely pointless" thread anyway?!?
thread packed with [s]Tory[/s] ex-Labour voters giving their opinions on what's best for the Labour Party,
FIFY
As for our opinions did we not warn everyone that Corbyn would be a disaster ? It seems to be working out just we guessed it would
I am not following this thread in any detail, I just occasionally have a peek to make sure that it's still a completely pointless thread packed with Tory voters giving their opinions on what's best for the Labour Party,
I also am engaging in this tactic
The RW are more interested in the "trot" than the "trots"
So at Corbyn's campaign launch he speaks of a "kinder gentler politics" once more nut as Owen Smith points out that doesn't fit with Corbyn's behaviour and the threat to deselect MPs if they show disloyalty to him. All quite amusing from the man who has spent his career voting largely against the Labour Party in Parliament.
Poor ex Labour now Tory voters! It sounds like voting Blair was the best moment of their lives.
Just don't understand why Tories care so much. You want the Tories in power and Corbyn is "unelectable" what's the problem?
I will wager he has voted less times against the party than you have said it
Did you read the question he was asked and his reply? It's a little different to the spun headlines. Owen has run with it I see too.threat to deselect MPs
I will wager he has voted less times against the party than you have said it
I would take that bet but I know you are a not a betting man. 500 odd times and I have posted that statement far less times than that.
@Alex thats a fair point, I read the comment in the Indy and at BBC and have watched coverage at BBC, Sky, Indy but the actual footage of that was not included
So if this new gentler brand of politics the Beardy Messiah is now advocating had always been around then the Glorious Leader himself would have been deselected about 28 years ago?
Priceless! 😆
@Alex - so what he said was due fo boundary changes due to take effect in 2020 if he is leader all Labour MPs will face reselection. Certainly sounds like a threat to me
Junky and ernie given the left leaning bias on STW where are all the Labour supporters chipping in to this thread ?
kinder gentler politics
Well that's just a complete contradiction of what he stands for. He has a vested interest in perpetuating the persitent ideology of division, prejudice, inequality and hate. Think about it. The moment he comes out and says 'we've achieved equality' his whole reason for existence disappears.
Personally I think we are as equal as we will ever be, which is to say that there is a lot of inequality around but it's equal in all directions.
Also love the way he's still playing with the myth that the gender pay gap is 20%. It's not and hasn't been for some time.
geetee1972 - MemberAlso love the way he's still playing with the myth that the gender pay gap is 20%. It's not and hasn't been for some time.
19.2%.
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/what-is-the-gender-pay-gap/
It's amazing what you can pack into a day if you don't waste it on here. 🙂
Let's have a look what the usual suspects have posted; ah, shite, shite and more shite. So no change there then. 😆
"He has a vested interest in perpetuating the persitent ideology of division, prejudice, inequality and hate"
Which of course is why he's spent his entire political career campaigning for the opposite. 😕
"Think about it"
Clearly, you haven't.
"Junky and ernie given the left leaning bias on STW"
😆
This forum has anything but a 'left leaning bias'.
Jambalaya; what colour is a red London bus?
He has a vested interest in perpetuating the persitent ideology of division, prejudice, inequality and hate.
Surely this is entirely consistent with his beliefs though - maintaining class consciousness is an objective necessity in order to create the conditions for socialist revolution and fuel a popular uprising against the bourgeoisie.
"Surely this is entirely consistent with his beliefs though - maintaining class consciousness is an objective necessity in order to create the conditions for socialist revolution and fuel a popular uprising against the bourgeoisie."
I don't think you quite understood the statement you are responding to. 😆
Or much else, for that matter.
Police have advised Angela Eagle they cannot gauranty to keep her safe at her constituency meetings so she has cancelled them. Kinder gentler politics.
On the membershio it has been reprted that 40,000 of ten180,000 applications have been rejected and also that numerous groups have been offering to lend (give ?) people the £25 to register. Naughty naughty and against the rules. Buying votes and influence anyone ?
This forum has anything but a 'left leaning bias'.
Massively so 3:1 in terms of regular posters on chat/political threads ?
Police have advised Angela Eagle they cannot gauranty to keep her safe at her constituency meetings so she has cancelled them. Kinder gentler politics.
But they can guarantee the safety of Corbyn. That's a bit unsporting of them.
EDIT: On a point of fact, she hasn't cancelled them.
Well this interesting. The latest YouGov poll gives the Tories an 11 percent lead over Labour.
This is surprisingly low imo given that firstly, 80 percent of Labour MPs have very publicly attacked the Labour leader - a completely unprecedented move in UK Parliamentary history.
And secondly, the new Tory leader is still very much enjoying the start of the "honeymoon period" which all new leaders/prime minsters enjoy - even Gordon Brown enjoyed a honeymoon period when he first became prime minister, which hugely benefited the Labour Party's standing in opinion polls.
I am honestly and genuinely surprised.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-poll-lead-yougov-labour-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-first-pmqs-thatcher-a7146526.html ]Tories open 11-point poll lead over Labour as assured Theresa May attacks Jeremy Corbyn in first PMQs[/url]
But what makes this YouGov poll particularly noteworthy is that in 2008, when the Labour Party was firmly united behind Gordon Brown, a YouGov poll gave the Tories a 20 percent lead over Labour.
[url= http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/08/09/another-20-point-lead-for-cameron/ ]The Tory YouGov lead drops to 20%[/url]
[i][b]"The main conclusion from the poll is that we have got a little bit closer to the general election and still there is no major change in Labour’s position. The time is ticking by and Labour is still facing disaster."[/i][/b]
Less than 2 years later in the general election of 2010 the Tory lead over Labour had collapsed to 7 percent, and they were unable to form a government on their own.
Now unlike jambalaya I don't know what the general election result in 4 years time will be, but I do know that the Labour Party has been in a worse electoral situation than it is now, despite all the self-inflected damage. And I also know that they have recovered remarkably well, so who knows? Apart from jambalaya and all the other Tories/right-wingers of course.
ernie_lynch - Member
Well this interesting.
So it isn't a
after all?a completely pointless thread
😐
This is surprisingly low imo given that firstly, 80 percent of Labour MPs have very publicly attacked the Labour leader - a completely unprecedented move in UK Parliamentary history.And secondly, the new Tory leader is still very much enjoying the start of the "honeymoon period" which all new leaders/prime minsters enjoy - even Gordon Brown enjoyed a honeymoon period when he first became prime minister, which hugely benefited the Labour Party's standing in opinion polls.
I am honestly and genuinely surprised.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Yes Flashheart. We are living in very politically interesting times, not just here but across the western world.
The topic of this thread reflects this and it could be the basis for an interesting debate.
Unfortunately the thread has been rendered pointless by the usual petty point-scorers who would rather post silly pictures and rant instead of engaging in intelligent debate.
So yes, the latest opinion poll is indeed "interesting", but ninfan's usual smartarse response, as typified above, isn't particularly interesting. Although I'm sure that he feels very pleased with himself.
[quote=jambalaya ]Junky and ernie given the left leaning bias on STW where are all the Labour supporters chipping in to this thread ?
Drowned out by the usual RW folk on here?
Perhaps they have something better to do than debating the labour party with a rag tackle bunch of rampant RW haterz?
Its just you saying you dislike Corbyn - I have got that point
TBH if he started shittign gold blocks you would complain they were too small or that the blocks were racist or bullying or some such nonsense
Instead I will discuss it with other labour party members ad vote as I see fit.
What you and other RW wont enter my mind for a second as I am sure you wont think of me when you vote tory.
TBH if he started shittign gold blocks
I'd vote for him if he could do that.
Edit: I'd settle for a tax cut. I'd happily do without trident if it's a decent one.
Ernie - You're just in s strop because I picked holes in your left-wing hero worship of Che by pointing out that his actions couldn't be further from the Marxist-Leninist principled candle that you hold for him if he tried 😆
Edit - Actually, I withdraw that, maybe you're just frustrated with yourself because you're embarrassed about someone showing you up on an issue of left-wing ideology.
[img] 
[/img]
Re gender pay gap
Has anyone actually read the ONS report?
The key % in there is [b]comparable[/b] pay - not the overall gap - and this % is half of what Northwind has quoted
Inevitably it is the headline that those who can't be bothered to read (ie most journos) always quote
Not that I'm defending the fact that there is a difference - there should be a rate for the role; the gender etc of the job holder is irrelevant
Ernie - You're just in s strop because I picked holes in .....
Yes I'm in a terrible strop.........I hate it when you pick holes
lol
Has anyone actually read the ONS report?
I have. That's why I know that the true like for like gap is around 9% and this does not account for the fact that men change jobs once every three years whereas for women it's once every five years. That frequency of change can readily account for a 9% difference since the only time you ever have any reaslistic prospect for increasing your salary (by more than just RPI) is when you chance jobs.
You can typicall expect to add about 10% when you change jobs in a blue collar position so within a ten year window, there's your so called 'gender pay gap'.
The figure of 20% is the difference in actual earnings and reflects many other factors that are largely down to personal choice.
On the membershio it has been reprted that 40,000 of ten180,000 applications have been rejected and also that numerous groups have been offering to lend (give ?) people the £25 to register. Naughty naughty and against the rules. Buying votes and influence anyone ?
LOL! Not voting this time the Jamby?
Probably all Tories that have been rejected FFS
he is funny isnt he
Openly said he voted and then moaning that they are now blocking folk like him voting
Whichever reality occurs it once that he will slag off. as will al the RW on here. In no sense is this a debate.
Oversimplification but I get your pointThat frequency of change can readily account for a 9% difference
One might also like to ask WHY men are able to change jobs more frequently? Its also , clearly, still the case that their is a gender bias in senior and the highest paid roles Again this is unlikely due to the talent
Its quite bizarre that after 45 years we still dont have equal pay
The figure of 20% is the difference in actual earnings and reflects many other factors that are largely down to personal choice.
I always wondered why say childcare - which these days requires a level 2 minimum and realistically a level 3 or higher. Look at EYPS for example - equivalent to a teacher but nursery roles at less than 20k!! It is a pretty skilled job gets such low pay yet construction gets such high pay. Its true that females tend to prefer certain jobs - I worked as youth worker in this area and did projects to get females into construction for example- but one also has to ask why equivalent "female" jobs get paid so much less than "equivalent" male roles.
theaccountant - MemberThe key % in there is comparable pay - not the overall gap - and this % is half of what Northwind has quoted
Nope. The 9.4% is comparing full time with full time, and yes that does give you a direct comparison of that exact circumstance, but it doesn't give a true representation of real world pay conditions because it's a direct comparison of only a limited subset of employees.
There are various useful statistics you can look at in this but the point is, it's obviously untrue to say that the 20% figure Corbyn refers to is a myth.
Probably all Tories that have been rejected FFS
I very much doubt that jambalaya's claim of 40,000 rejections is true.
The registration was a two day window with a deadline of 5pm yesterday. It is unlikely, in the extreme, that they have managed to vet 40,000 (all of them rejected) out of the 180,000 total in just one day. Vetting includes making a personal phone call to each individual.
[i]
"The huge number of registered supporters comes despite the NEC ruling the fee should be more than eight times higher than 2015, when it cost just £3.
Around 105,000 registered supporters voted in 2015, though thousands more were excluded by the party’s vetting procedures. This time 183,541 supporters signed up in a two-day window, which last year was several weeks.
Labour party headquarters had hoped to avoid the administration burden of vetting hundreds of thousands of new members and supporters, but will have a month to do so before ballot papers are sent out in late August."[/i]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/20/labour-stops-crowd-funding-bid-to-help-supporters-pay-for-vote ]Labour signs up more than 180,000 supporters to vote in leadership contest[/url]
just occasionally have a peek
#croydondefence*
*IIRC, you are somewhere around Croydon, Ernest. My apologies if you're not. In fact, my congratulations if you're not.
One might also like to ask WHY men are able to change jobs more frequently?
I think men are more willing to take risks and women value security more. Men are also more aggressive negotiators for the same reason, another reason why you still see a persistent pay difference despite the legislation and changing attitudes.
The 9.4% is comparing full time with full time, and yes that does give you a direct comparison of that exact circumstance, but it doesn't give a true representation of real world pay conditions because it's a direct comparison of only a limited subset of employees.
I think you're making our argument for us. No one is saying that if you take the set of all men and all women in work and do the math the difference isn't 20% because it is.
The point is, that difference does NOT represent discrimination or disadvantage. It represents choice.
But I tell you what, if you want to fix the persistent issue of there being this difference in earnings, then you also need to fix the pernicious and highly discriminatory situation we have in parenting roles and how fathers are disadvantaged by the system.
Until you have parity in the importance we give to BOTH parents in the fammily/parenting roles, you aren't going to solve that problem (and you can thank the likes of Hariet Harman for that).
Consider this. Now that fathers can take up to six months of shared parenting leave (shared with their partner) why can't they also get the same compensation package that their female colleages get.
A woman gets nine months paid maternity leave say from her employer but the men don't get that. It's clearly discrimination.
CaptainFlashheart - Memberjust occasionally have a peek
Yes I've had several peeks today, well done for noticing.
Obviously this bothers you, unfortunately I might start posting more on this thread. Or I might not.
Anyway. Enough about me.......what about you ? Got anything constructive to say ? Don't be shy.
Got anything constructive to say ?
No. Thanks for asking, though.
geetee1972 - MemberA woman gets nine months paid maternity leave say from her employer but the men don't get that. It's clearly discrimination.
Of course it is. But since women get the shitty end of the stick in many other ways, it's not where you start. On average, a man could take that 9 months unpaid, and more than make up the difference over his career just because of the gender pay gap. In fact, he'll have done so after about 7 years.
Responding to commentary on the gender pay gap with "but us poor men are discriminated against too!" is specious at best, and a very played out card. Who will defend the poor middle class wasp!
This thread feels as warm and cost as a shadow cabinet meeting only with more people in it....
No.
Fair enough.
Here's some more from me :
Yesterday Owen Smith declared that under Corbyn the Labour Party was, quote :
[b] [i]"teetering on the brink of extinction"[/i][/b]
Which I'm sure you'll agree sounds rather dramatic.
Specially when you consider that under Corbyn Labour Party membership has now risen to over half a million - the highest in modern times. And which makes the Labour Party today by far and away the largest political party in the UK.
If Owen Smith does indeed become Labour Party leader unrestrained hyperbole here we come.
I hope they have better jokes in the shadow cabinet.
Pretty sure there will be fewer right wing Tories moaning 😉
So its because we are just better negotiators rather than any gender bias....you really sure about that ?Men are also more aggressive negotiators for the same reason, another reason why you still see a persistent pay difference despite the legislation and changing attitudes.
that difference does NOT represent discrimination or disadvantage. It represents choice
Still simplistic, one sided and a disingenuous claim. At best its part of the explanation NOT the whole answer.
Of course it is. But since women get the shitty end of the stick in many other ways, it's not where you start. On average, a man could take that 9 months unpaid, and more than make up the difference over his career just because of the gender pay gap. In fact, he'll have done so after about 7 years.
It's all part of the same problem though. You can't fix one without the other and I think we should fix both. As for the shitty end of the stick a) I know plenty of men who've had the shitty end of the stick at work, this is not something that's defined by gender and the world was never ruled by 'men', it was only ever ruled by 'some men'. And b) if you want to know what the shitty end of a stick feels like ask any father whose been denied access to his kids and has subsequently lost the best part of life as a result. Go on. Ask. There are plenty of them out there.
You see that's the problem with the far left. It's full of hypocrisy. You only see the prejudice and the discrimination you want to see.
tmh kerching 😀
Ernie the 40,000 figure was on Sky earlier, no idea where they got that from. Also @captain 'twas they who reported Angela Eagle had cancelled her open surgeries
Firstly no doubt women earn less than men in many professions, there are some legitimate reasons like career breaks for kids means they return with less experience, also more women in part-time work and/or doing less hours as they are primary carer for kids. Women more often secondary earners and thus less focused on progression. As noted above men are generally more aggressive in switching jobs and thus getting payrises. There is of course gender inequality too where like for like women are paid less.
It's the job, the duty, the responsibility of every MP to get behind the party
Hmmmm........do as I say, not as I do.....
Gender inequality is an important issue, it is however not one with which you can lead a general election campaign with. Its's worth a few days of campaign airtime but that's about it. A GE will be won on big picture issues like the nhs, economy and taxation.
you already do THM you already do
Ernie the 40,000 figure was on Sky earlier, no idea where they got that from.
No, nor have I. It suggests that they have made personal phone calls and vetted presumably the majority of 180,000 applications, in just 24 hours (working through the night I guess) despite having a month to do so.
I would take it with a pinch of salt. Like most things you hear relating to Corbyn.
I am not following this thread in any detail, I just occasionally have a peek to make sure that it's still a completely pointless thread packed[b] people who have a vote in the coming leadership election[/b] [s]Tory voters[/s] giving their opinions on what's best for the Labour Party, and that binners is still ranting endlessly about middle-class southerners [s]with special dietary needs[/s][b]who are unable to access a Gregg's bakery[/b], or whatever it is that upsets a salt-of-the-earth working-class northerner like him
FIFY 😉
jambalaya - MemberGender inequality is an important issue, it is however not one with which you can lead a general election campaign with.
Well that's useful to know.
I would take it with a pinch of salt. Like most things you hear relating to Corbyn.
Like Smith-espue hyperbolic talk of coups ? Sounds rather dramatic.