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

https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/green-party-continues-oppose-cptpp-puts-amendments

Can never work out the greens . On one side of the planet there all for these multi national trade organisations where as in NZ their against . I would say one thing , trade deals such as the EUs , NAFTA and the CPTPP generally lead to more consumption which equals bad for the environment , but the greens ( in Europe at least ) are all for it . Doesn't make much sense to me .

 

In your opinion, no offence

 

Ms Lucas is quoted as saying that she's proposing a group of women, because they
are not as " tribal" as their male counterparts. Her aim is to pass a vote of no confidence
in Boris Johnson, form a new Coalition Government ,with the aim of holding a second vote on
the question of leaving the EU.

 

I'm a lefty but this is sexist in my opinion. She's suggesting that women have qualities which make them inherently better able to carry out the task. It's like saying that men are better suited to certain jobs because we are more logical than women etc.

 

Next time you want a payrise, you could:

1). Go in and threaten to leave and see how they can cope without you
2). Tell them what you are looking for, tell them what you are going to give them to make it worth their while, and demonstrate that you can do both.

#1 *might* work, but it is more likely to find you scanning the job adverts in between signing on.

 

Or you could go in cap in hand begging and take the first thing they offer.
Btw patronising posts just get folks backs up, I've successfully negotiated many contracts/ rises in my time thanks very much.
Like I say opinions and all that,you obviously seem to prefer prefer the obsequious approach

 

It's also completely beyond me why they are so pro EU. She would do better to try and address the problems the EU now have in setting a target on climate change. The proposals for emmissions targets across the EU were very recently vetoed by the Eastern bloc who still rely heavily on fossil fuel. The EU is also very good at re-distributing jobs to countries with lower employment costs (lower wages) such as its 2011 soft loan to Ford to relocate Transit van production to Turkey (as a prelude to them then joining). People in Southampton see their factory shut down and Transits used in the UK are now shipped across Europe. The container ships don't have sails so that's more green house gas but heyho Ford make more money by paying workers less.

 

With all due respect ...Bit patronisng that JD!

 

Not really. You seem to completely ignore people's starting points in life and call for everyone to be treated equally, even when it would be patently unfair to do so. There was a thread you started a while ago where I was going to post a study for you to read which addressed the difference and I thought it would be useful to you but I wasn't at my computer so was unable to access it at that time so I didn't bother. In terms of being patronising, I didn't claim you don't know what it is, just that it may be of some interest to you to do further research into it. If you don't want to then obviously that's fine but if someone made a serious recommendation to me of something they thought might be of interest and use to me then I would take a look.

 

OK. Fair enough. Sorry.
Nevertheless I must have not made it clear. I did not mean to disregard people's "starting points" as you put it. We patently cannot all be treated as equal, when it comes to say job roles because we are not all equal in ability or skill sets. MY point is about equal opportunity to achieve one's full potential. That is something that we should strive for and , again my point was that it is currently NOT the case.

Wealth and privilege allows people to achieve their full potential (and in some cases gives them access to jobs and status beyond their abilities) denying more capable people opportunities due to lack of wealth and privilege.
I have never agreed that everyone should go to university and obtain a degree. What I DO agree with is that everyone should be given the opportunity if an academic path is for them. Some people flourish and thrive in non-academic hands on practical skills or various other careers where , frankly, a piece of paper proves nothing. The obsession with paper qualifications and white collar deemed superior to blue collar has existed for years. In Germany, engineers etc are respected as much as office workers but the UK career progression is much harder when not in an adm,inistrative role.
In recent years, the insistence on having a degree to teach Primary does not make for a better teacher(My wife was a classroom teacher for 37 years initially without a degree although she opted to study in her 'spare time' quite few years later and obtained one in Language Development but for her it was more about the content/knowledge gained rather than the qualification) . She was well repected throughout her career. My son in law has a degree and after working in industry for two or three years, fast tracked into teaching 4 years ago and it seems that whilst things are improving, the course did not really instruct him HOW to teach. All the strategies employed etc came from teaching practice, working in schools with mentors and observations (i.e. training on the job with actual practtioners). He is not particularly academically gifted but he is a natural teacher who inspires the kids and is achieving good results (not just SATS) but motivating his pupils in everyday lessons.

Anyway I digress. My point about meritocracy is NOT 'equality regardless' but giving everyone the chance to identify and develop their full potential and reach their own personal goals. Surely that way, not only benefits the individual, but society as a whole

 

Should the people be given a vote on anything?

 

She appears to have made an apology for this. Despite her undoubted best intentions it wasn’t really thought out very well

 

Isn't it interesting though. She gives an apology for a well intentioned comment during a period of undoubted frustration at the people now alleging to run the country.

It's a pretty rare thing to see a govt official apologise so swiftly without days and weeks of further outcry and further smearing.

Indeed. You can grab people round the neck and aggressively march them from a building. You can be caught on film decrying the jewish. You can openly lie as an MP, be caught out, and carry on regardless. You can talk hyperbole and foster hatred, in the attempt to be popular and financially benefit as a result. You can gift public assets to friends who gain extreme wealth as a result. All without apology.

Fair play to Caroline Lucas. I'd much rather our other 649 MP's had enough about them to offer apology rather than bully, lie, or refuse to take ownership of their actions or remarks.

 

I totally agree. I hate it when I see the comment “they are all the same in there” there being the Houses of Parliament.

“They” quite clearly aren’t all the same, there are many good people trying to do there best of which I’d class Caroline Lucas. Voting with best intentions and for the greater good of the country, not for themselves or as is the case in some instances their paymasters.

 

A cynic might say it's political expediency, UK Greens ( who I largely align with, environmentally) have only 1 MP, but 7 MEP's who will be lost on leaving the EU.
Less cynically it allows the 7 MEP's to join the European Green bloc that currently has 10% of the seats in the EU Parliament..

 

They should. We vote to elect MPs to make decisions on our behalf. People that are paid to understand problems and make an informed decision.

 

Don't you think you...or I... are capable of making an informed decision?

 

Err... but how many jobs do you know of that put someone in such a position of power and impact over millions of peoples lives where absolutely no qualifications, specific skill sets (in the case of ministers who seem to become 'experts' as soon as they are given a ministerial post somewhere like 'education' or 'defence') other than becoming a politician!

As an example and no disrespect to the Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner, who seems to speak quite a lot of common sense on numerous occasions,.but she is in a position, if Labour were elected, to dictate to professional Heads etc. education policy in spite of having left school at 16, pregnant with absolutely no qualifications, (albeit later studying part time at college) qualifying as a Social Care worker.

That background would not have enabled her to rise to the level she has in, say, business, industry or commerce and I suspect it is only her activities in the Trade Union movement that has given her the chance to take such High Office.

As I said in another thread I am 100% in favour of people having the opportunity to realise their full potential but that is not the same as someone , effectively unproven, being given such a position of power.

 

I had a very similar discussion recently about the new cabinet. My feeling is I'm much more worried about the people in cabinet with no skill or ability in a given role. Maybe more so, the ones who have completely, publicly, changed their mind all of a sudden. Or ones with pretty extreme views.

I see your point about Angela Rayner. Though I might have been more inclined to comment on the current Education Secretary, seeing as he is the one who now is making decisions and enabling an unelected PM. The current Education Secretary who was sacked for leaking secrets whilst Defence Secretary. The one who studied Politics at University. In between being a councillor, he spent a few years as managing director of a fireplace company, a pottery company and then in 2010 became an MP.

So I'm sure you agree, he's in no way suitable to be an expert in Education. I fully suspect we could run through every cabinet member, the senior positions especially and come to a very similar conclusion.