O/T Caroline Lucas .........

......... has asked 10 female politicians from all parties to join her in forming an "emergency cabinet" in a bid to stop a no-deal Brexit in an Article in the Guardian (surprise surprise)

Wonder what the response would have been if some politician had proposed an 'all male cabinet'

Don't see how even that staunchest Liberal can defend this sexist approach.

 

What’s the rationale behind that??

 

Its an outrage I agree.

On Friday, the missus didn't even have my dinner on the table on time. Hadn't starched my shirts and tried talking to me while I was reading the daily hatred.

Better be careful or fisticuffery will have to intervene.

Now, where are my pipe, slippers and anti migrant signs?

 

Who mentioned racism, (which you appear to be fixated on, and subjugation of women?

The point is a) like postitive discrimination and quotas, every positive has a negative and not the way to go forcing the issue. Discriminating in favour of one section of society however well intentioned, automatically discriminates against the rest. The only fair and permanent solution is education and creating a meritocracy and equal opportunities which I agree is very hard to achieve.

Coming back to the specific point, we have only had two female PMs in the entire history of the English Parliament and we all know how that went don't we.

 

Can’t you go and pick some olives or something instead of posting more inane drivel

 

You seem to be fixated against long denigrated sections of society being assisted to overcome isms.

I've zero issue with poor little white men being allegedly discriminated against to balance out centuries of injustices. Somehow I don't think the white male middle classes will have to face what women, migrants, homosexual, trans and those with disabilities have long suffered and still do today.

But each to their own. The ists will continue to be who they are til their final breath.

 

But using quotas is a short term fix, flawed and doomed to failure. It has nothing to do with " poor little white men" it is strange that you see it that way, (or are you an apologist for being a white heterosexual male - assuming you are).
The glaringly obvious fact is, that by placing someone in a role over someone better qualified or experienced simply to satisfy some quota or other (regardless which way round it is) is overtly racist or sexist (can you not see that?)
Someone is, in effect, being selected based on their race skin colour or gender over some one of a different race, which is the very definitition of racism or sexism (however well intentioned).

 

Our political, legal and media are run by a vanishingly narrow section of society. Upper class white men who went to the right public schools and studied the right degrees at the right university together. If you think any of that is merit based you must be mad.

 

Tekky, I know you like to learn and understand things so I mean this as a genuine recommendation. I think you may find it useful to do more research on equity versus equality.

 

The whole point is it's not a short term fix and is proven to bring about long term change to ensure ingrained inequality is overcome and that we end up with more representative institutions.

I'm assuming your not trying to claim that huge over representation of white men in positions of power and authority is simply a reflection of their ability?

 

What is the point of us voting to leave Europe but still have a deal with them surely we would still be shackled to them

 

Do you have a natural bias that white men are always deemed to be better qualified or better experienced?

Who said anything about quotas? There is inherent gender and racial bias in the UK (as there is across the world, as you'll no doubt see at first hand). Its obvious.

This inherent bias is continuing still. Look at businesses and consider why women aren't represented in the 40-50% range for senior executive roles. And lets not even start on BAME candidates.

Positive discrimination isn't necessarily a thing that's happening in business. I'll cite you a direct example. One of my clients has introduced blind CV's. So name, age, gender and ethnicity are removed. The rate of BAME and female applicants passing first round shot up from 4% and 19% respectively, to 39 and 48%.

Interestingly, once a face to face interview was conducted, the rates dropped back down to previous levels, despite skills and experience being suitable for the role.

Of course you can be in uproar about it. Personally, I don't. I've no issue with more women and BAME people progressing in this world and eroding the myth that white males have always been and always will be the natural choice for anything of importance.

 

She’s an imbecile.

 

Are you saying you don’t want us to have a trade deal with the EU? The closest countries to us in the world and makers of lots of things British people enjoy?

 

This is the reason people shouldn't have been given a vote.

 

This made me laugh out loud.

 

Well the blokes have made a right **** of it over the last 2000 years. Let the lasses have a crack I say.(no pun intended)

 

What is the point of us voting to leave Europe, but still have a deal with *any other country in the world* surely we *would still be shackled to them*.

There is a grand total of 0 countries in the world without at least one trade deal. The last one, Mauritania in Africa, signed its first deal in the last year. However, I would recommend against copying Mauritania as ~20% of the population are in actual slavery and life expectancy is around 40.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself if Canada is shackled to the USA? - In some ways it is, as goods have to meet the standards of the other country, but the USA is also shackled to Canada in the same way.

 

They have no idea imho, no deal should never have been withdrawn to start with.#
I mean I don't think no deal is a good idea and I don't think we should do it but that and a good poker face would have gone a long way to getting a deal. its not like its only us that stands to lose.

 

No offence, but that is one of the reasons that we are in such a mess. That is the sort of used-car salesman thinking about international negotiations that David Davies tried and as a negotiating technique it is complete crap. For big negotiations, you actually have to know what you want to get out of it before you go into the negotiation. *We still haven't decided*.

You have to look at the big picture, decide what you want and what you are willing to sacrifice to get that. You also need to know what the other side wants and is willing to sacrifice and keep it professional. Storming out just breeds bad feelings from the opposition, as does wasting time and pointless arguing.

Worst case, you also have to know what *could* happen if negotiations collapse - the EU did that and their preparations for no deal were complete a while ago. Ours still aren't.