Cabinet reshuffle

(40 Posts)
radiohelen Tue 04-Sep-12 11:13:44

So place your bets ladies and gentlemen... how many women will be left in the cabinet by the end of the day? Will there be less than he started with? It's looking that way at the moment.

Warsi is yet to accept her job offer as a junior minister after being fired as Tory co-chair. The deadline was 9am apparently.
Caroline Spelman and Cheryl Gillan are both out.

Not sure I'm happy with the lurch to the right. Ken Clark is a sensible chap and all the people who are being promoted are essentially career politicians with no discernible broad view of the world. OK it's not like we have a party like the Republicans in control but it still doesn't sit well for me.

Extrospektiv Tue 04-Sep-12 13:40:55

Anti-Republican views now spreading out beyond the actual US election thread? Romney/Ryan should see this forum...

ttosca Tue 04-Sep-12 21:09:14

Cabinet shuffle summary:

-----------------------------

With the cabinet shuffle, the UK now has:

Secretary of Transport - Scared of flying.
Secretary of Health - Calls the NHS a "60-year old mistake", opposes abortion, opposes stem cell research, and advocates homoeopathy as viable treatment.
Secretary of Environment - Climate change sceptic.
Secretary of Justice - Believes businesses should be able to discriminate against homosexuals.
Secretary for Women and Equalities - Hates equality and women

(With thanks to Occupy Birmingham Uni)

Extrospektiv Tue 04-Sep-12 21:31:15

Maria Miller is not a woman-hater, plain stupid remark.
Fear of flying is nothing to laugh at, being a medical condition. That is ableist and cruel. He can clearly do his job without flying.
As I said on the Hunt thread this country rightly does not operate a pro-choice "abortion litmus test" for any government position. Being pro-life I approve. Homeopathy remarks are ignorant and NHS one more than a little insensitive though.

Occupy is not a reliable source any more than MSNBC or Noam Chomsky. Moderate source and I might take it seriously.

radiohelen Tue 04-Sep-12 21:49:48

And yes - we have fewer women in cabinet now. Always a good move.

Losers
Caroline Spelman
party chairman Baroness Warsi
Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan
Justine Greening was moved from Transport to the Department for International Development.

According to the Telegraph three of the four women remaining in the Cabinet – Theresa Villiers, Theresa May and Justine Greening – do not have children.

alcofrolic Tue 04-Sep-12 23:39:56

Monday 11th June:
Oakeshott also told the Channel 4 Dispatches programme, which airs on Monday 11 June, that Cameron's continued backing for Hunt to keep his job raised "very serious questions" about his judgment, and suggested he believed there could have been an agreement between the Conservative leadership and the Murdoch press to support each others interests.

Tuesday 4th September:
Andrew Lansley has been replaced as Health Secretary by Jeremy Hunt as part of an extensive government reshuffle.The move is a promotion for Mr Hunt, who has been under pressure for his handling of the BSkyB takeover bid.

Will someone please explain what is going on and how we are expected to have faith in the government's integrity?

(I have sat through a school inset today, trying to make some sense of the new Govian appraisal systems - trying to reinvent the wheel as regards pay progression. It is the most poorly thought-out, badly presented, loose-ended piece of government twaddle I have ever seen over many years of teaching. The man is an ass.)

niceguy2 Wed 05-Sep-12 09:53:13

Personally I don't care about how many women are in the cabinet or not. The only criteria should be can that person do the job or not. Having to put a certain number of women in just to please the feminists is in my view positive discrimination and I don't like discrimination of any kind.

ElBurroSinNombre Wed 05-Sep-12 10:40:14

niceguy,

If the criteria that you would apply ('being able to do the job') was really applied fairly then you would expect to see a 50 / 50 split of cabinet positions (and of MPs as well). The fact that there has never been anything like a 50:50 ratio for MPs (or cabinet ministers) implies that discrimination is already taking place. Are you against the 'positive' discrmination that men receive as well?

ttosca Wed 05-Sep-12 11:19:14

Personally I don't care about how many women are in the cabinet or not. The only criteria should be can that person do the job or not. Having to put a certain number of women in just to please the feminists is in my view positive discrimination and I don't like discrimination of any kind.

zzzzzz

somebloke123 Wed 05-Sep-12 11:54:35

Having a "climate change sceptic" (a strange term - does anyone not accept that the climate has changed throughout the Earth's history?) seems a refreshing development.

Better than having some fool who thinks that carpeting the UK with useless windmills will save the planet.

Incidentally, Owen Paterson was several years ago the author of an excellent policy document on fishing, in which the UK would reassert control of our fishing grounds, operate a fair system of permits to avoid overfishing, and ban the appalling practice of chucking dead fish back in the sea just because they fell foul of lunatic EU quota rules.

It was actually official Tory policy for a time but was later dropped - by Michael Howard IIRC.

ElBurroSinNombre Wed 05-Sep-12 16:44:17

We now have an anti-science secretary of the environment (a deluded climate change sceptic) and an anti science health secreatry (Homeopathy FFS, against stem cell research).
These are not 'refreshing developments' for the rational amongst us.

Extrospektiv Wed 05-Sep-12 16:49:15

anti-science? Stem cell research is a moral issue.

slug Wed 05-Sep-12 17:07:16

7% of people in Britain have had a private school education. In the Department of Education's ministerial team, it's 83%

slug Wed 05-Sep-12 17:08:09

I see the blokes have come online to mansplain it all to us hmm

somebloke123 Wed 05-Sep-12 17:29:06

How is being sceptical about whether observed climate change is significantly due to human activity and is dangerous being "anti-science"?

On the contrary, scepticism in science is not only not a bad thing but is a positive duty.

What has "blokes" got do do with it - I was simply expressing a view, not trying to explain something that I had assumed others needed to have explained to them, which I take it was what you were saying.

Extrospektiv Wed 05-Sep-12 17:56:23

"Mansplaining" - if you want to see why stem-cell research and killing foetuses and embryos are opposed see some women then. Jill Stanek, Lila Rose, Penny Nance, and Feminists for Life for a start.

ElBurroSinNombre Wed 05-Sep-12 18:57:24

somebloke; Anyone who has taken a serious look at the data has concluded that global warming is happening. The people who dispute it are on the fringes and usually have vested interests. It is not that dissimilar to the charlatans for whom creationism is a valid alternative to evolution.

extro; from what I understand stem cells can now be grown in the lab. from other non stem cells so it is not a moral issue anymore than a lot of other biological research

Extrospektiv Wed 05-Sep-12 21:09:13

I believe Hunt is only opposed to embryonic SCR though. I agree with you on any other form of stem cell research not being something to attack

ElBurroSinNombre Wed 05-Sep-12 21:50:29

Understanding stem cells is one of the keys to great advances in medicine - these advances are so revolutionary that they sound like sci-fi (e.g. growing new body parts for transplant from stem cells created by other cells from the recipient). IMO Our morals will always shift in the face of technological advances to encompass the new reality.

Extrospektiv Wed 05-Sep-12 21:52:45

Mainstream moral views perhaps will- a remnant will hold on to traditional views. Anti-modernism will not be eradicated.

ElBurroSinNombre Wed 05-Sep-12 21:54:53

Yes - Hurrah for the Luddites!
(except of course when they benefit from the advances that they 'morally' objected to)

flatpackhamster Thu 06-Sep-12 07:39:03

slug

7% of people in Britain have had a private school education. In the Department of Education's ministerial team, it's 83%

At least there's a fighting chance they'll know what good schooling looks like then.

ElBurroSinNombre

somebloke; Anyone who has taken a serious look at the data has concluded that global warming is happening.

Yes, the dispute is how much of that warming is caused by human influence. Questions remain and those questions are encouraged by shoddy partisanship.

The people who dispute it are on the fringes and usually have vested interests.

Such as Jeremy Leggett of SolarCentury who's lobbying for higher subsidies for renewables even though he owns a company that produces renewables? IIRC most of the vested interests lie on the green/socialist/renewables side, where the renewables industry sees a chance for taxpayers' cash and the green/socialist parties see a chance to use 'climate change' to push their vile extremist agenda on to us.

ElBurroSinNombre Thu 06-Sep-12 08:46:42

flatpack - the point I made is that Global warming is happening a point that you actually acknowledge. If the new environment secretary is really a 'climate change sceptic' then he would not accept this basic tenet which flys in the face of all the available evidence. I do not want irrational and ignorant people making the laws of this country. That is why I labeled him as anti-science.
I don't know or care who Jeremy Leggett is but I am not surprised that as a business man he lobbies the government - just like the many other business interests that you probably wouldn't describe as 'socialist / green ' or 'vile extremists'.

Your rather strange views on education betray your binary thinking;
state = bad, private = good
If only life were that simple.

sue52 Thu 06-Sep-12 09:14:38

I was surprised by Jeremy Hunt's appointment. I thought he would lose his post because of the BSB fallout instead he has had a promotion.

flatpackhamster Thu 06-Sep-12 10:45:26

ElBurroSinNombre

flatpack - the point I made is that Global warming is happening a point that you actually acknowledge. If the new environment secretary is really a 'climate change sceptic' then he would not accept this basic tenet which flys in the face of all the available evidence.

I don't know who you know who denies that the planet is warming but none of the people I've read about on either side of the AGW debate claim the planet isn't warming.

I do not want irrational and ignorant people making the laws of this country. That is why I labeled him as anti-science.

What's anti-science about rejecting the core tenets of the AGW argument? You don't even know his grounds for rejecting them, which could be sound (sounder than, say, the Stern report).

I don't know or care who Jeremy Leggett is but I am not surprised that as a business man he lobbies the government - just like the many other business interests that you probably wouldn't describe as 'socialist / green ' or 'vile extremists'.

My point was that the government is being lobbied by both sides of this argument - businesses who want to keep their fuel and running costs low, and people (including businesses) who want taxpayer subsidy for wind turbines and solar panels.

^Your rather strange views on education betray your binary thinking;
state = bad, private = good^
If only life were that simple.

No, my views one education are - state = mediocre bordering on poor, private = better.

Life is that simple. The state education system fails huge numbers of pupils, particularly those at the bottom but also those at the top, or even those in the middle whose personal circumstances don't fit the ideal.

Objecting to too many privately educated people at the department for education is like objecting to too many obstetricians in a maternity ward.

slug Thu 06-Sep-12 12:11:06

^ state = mediocre bordering on poor, private = better^

Ha Ha Ha Ha <<falls over laughing>> I've taught in both state and private. <<giggle>> Simply not the case in my experience. But hey, if you pay for it it's got to be better, right? hmm

ttosca Thu 06-Sep-12 13:21:52

slug-

Flatpack also thinks there shouldn't be a minimum wage or anti-discrimination laws. He's a free-market fundamentalist.

I agree, he is pretty funny.

Extrospektiv Thu 06-Sep-12 13:37:32

ttosca- You're a left-wing extremist - you admit you actually believe in the collapse of capitalism and replacement by socialism; so from my moderate position that's no better.

I support a raise in the minimum wage btw.

pinkteddy Thu 06-Sep-12 13:53:46

brilliant letter in the guardian today which sums up the reshuffle first one in attached link

niceguy2 Thu 06-Sep-12 14:10:03

Elburro, I don't think you can conclude that just because there are not 50-50 in the cabinet that therefore sexual discrimination is therefore proven.

Even assuming for one moment that there is an old boys network active, I can't see how the correct answer is to force a quota of women into the cabinet regardless of whether they are the best person for the job.

ElBurroSinNombre Thu 06-Sep-12 14:24:00

niceguy;

I would be interested in how you would explain the rather low proportion of women who achieve positions of political influence, if it is not through sexual discrimination of some sort or other. In this case and given the number of examples of Cameron's patronising attitude to women that are on the public record, I find it hard not to draw that conclusion.

If you do assume that an old boys network exists then that is another form of active discrimination, in reality little different to the quotaing that you oppose, except that the quotas would be in the public domain and therefore transparent.

slug Thu 06-Sep-12 15:11:33

Apparently, around govt way it's referred to as the DOMs and the non-DOMs i.e. "Dave's Old Mates" (who get jobs) and those who are not.

Given Eton is a boys only school, the pool of 'old mates' contains little if not no women at all.

flatpackhamster Thu 06-Sep-12 15:28:47

ttosca

Feel free to mischaracterise my position - it reinforces the view that you either don't understand it or are trolling.

ttosca Thu 06-Sep-12 16:31:06

ttosca- You're a left-wing extremist - you admit you actually believe in the collapse of capitalism and replacement by socialism; so from my moderate position that's no better.

Oh yes indeed I do. There is a reason you're seeing popular movements and protest happening all around the world with millions of people taking to the streets. Capitalism is failing the majority.

But it doesn't matter what I 'think will happen'. We'll see in 10 or 20 years exactly how long people will tolerate Capitalism when conditions become increasingly extreme.

ttosca Thu 06-Sep-12 16:32:26

flatpack-

I'm not mischaracterising your position. You made the claim that anti-discrimination laws against pregnant women should be abolished and that the minimum wage is harmful to employees.

Feel free to retract or explain your position more clearly.

MrJudgeyPants Thu 06-Sep-12 16:48:03

ttosca I'll bet you a capitalist made bottle of Laurent Perrier champagne against a communist made Romeo y Julieta hand rolled Churchill cigar that your revolution fails to materialise within 20 years. Furthermore, I predict that, dreadful accidents aside, the head of this good capitalist will still be in the general vicinity of my shoulders too!

As I said elsewhere, it will be the parents of the would be revolutionaries who will defeat them.

MrJudgeyPants Thu 06-Sep-12 16:49:18

ttosca "You made the claim that anti-discrimination laws against pregnant women should be abolished and that the minimum wage is harmful to employees."

I think it was me who said that wasn't it?

slug Thu 06-Sep-12 16:50:12

ttosca, I think in this case "extremist" = "Has a better argument than me"

It's a tactic I see more and more used by the Tea Party in the USA

Extrospektiv Thu 06-Sep-12 22:33:30

Both sides use the word extremist.
Tea Party will call Obama-Biden an extremist left wing ticket, which is false.
(Ralph Nader with Denis Kucinich or Barbara Boxer as VP= extreme leftwing.)
But moderate Republicans will call someone like Barbara Ehrenreich, Scott Lemieux or Noam Chomsky extreme left wing, which they are.

Same on the other side. The New Yorker, many European publications, and MSNBC will call Romney-Ryan an extremist right wing ticket, which is false. (Santorum with Pat Buchanan or Herman Cain as VP= extreme rightwing.)
But moderate Democrats will call Ann Coulter, Michael Savage or the Constitution Party extreme right wing, which they are.

It all depends whether you're clouded by being far onto your side so you cannot see the centre. It has nothing to do with what arguments you use.

flatpackhamster Fri 07-Sep-12 07:20:42

slug

ttosca, I think in this case "extremist" = "Has a better argument than me"

It's a tactic I see more and more used by the Tea Party in the USA

No, 'extremist' means 'extremist'. It's clinging to a set of fringe views that normal, rational people reject. My views on the minimum wage aren't extremist - I think that the minimum wage is bad for unskilled workers because it pushes them out of the job market, and that has been seen to be the case in countries such as France. I certainly didn't say what Ttosca is attributing to me about pregnant women, but this isn't about facts, it's about hate - and Ttosca hates it when she's schooled, which is what happens regularly in the threads here now.

I don't consider the Labour party, Lib Dems or Tories to be extremist. Just wrong. The Socialist Workers' Party I consider to be extremist. Communists are extremists. That puts Ttosca squarely in the 'extremist' category.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now