If a general election was called, who would you vote for?

I assume this is an analogy but I am obviously missing something.

It's probably obvious but can you explain?

On the whole, guessing at analogy. Only thing I can think of. Is that you feel reading the thread, that's it's predominantly posters telling others what to do? When they don't know anything about the situation at hand?

There's been a few yes but they're imo a bit... I dunno. Seems a bit pointless and tbh odd. On this thread there's been a few posters jump in and tell everyone what they must do, age that if they don't do it then .

Why on earth would anyone bother posting to do that? As if we're not grown ups with brains. Annoying but also amusing tbh.

Sorry went on tangent.

Can you say what analogy is? It's unusual, v interested!

Not heard that term before! So looked it up.

'Armchair general" is a derogatory term for a person who regards themselves as an expert on military matters, despite having little to no actual experience in the military. Alternatively, it can mean a military commander who does not participate in actual combat.'

I don't like tribal politics

I also think a spoiled ballot - you might as well save your shoe leather , bus fare , petrol money - you have not voted and will live with whatever those who did have voted for . But armchair generals are legion.

My view is ( & am not talking about a particular party ) - pick the least worst if that is all you can do & go with it. Gordon Bennett - I think the least we can all do is vote to make something heard.

Sorry

Tldr.

Climate change? Go and tell it to men.

And stop telling us that there's (always) something more important we should sort out before we think about our half of the population.

Meanwhile. In my office who at lunchtime pulled out a bag to put purchases in, and who every day got new bags from shops?

Who put rubbish in the right bin and who just shoved it in the nearest one?

...

A handful of women on MN can influence climate change by voting for an unelectable party in England, who don't even know what we are?

No thank you.

Why are women who are interested in women's/ girls rights, their situations all over the world .

ALWAYS been told to prioritise something else?

Does this happen to other rights groups?

And for women it's about EVERYTHING. all the time.

Lefty thing is that feminism means fighting for equality for EVERYONE.
Talk about UK and it's stop that what about Afghanistan?
Talk about Afghanistan and it's what about refugee situation around the world?
Talk about cervical cancer and it's what about men's cancers?
Talk about sexual violence global and it's what about conscription?
And on and on.

Do men on chat sites talking about say knife crime teen boys dying do have posters jumping in and saying what about climate change?

I have no idea.
I doubt it.
And I have no idea but from what I've seen I doubt many threads at all like that are created/ posted on much.

Wherever you look. From a global point of view.

Who is in charge?

Who has the power?

Who owns the wealth?

Who controls the the resources?

Who makes cock shaped rockets and fires them way into the sky. Which have no benefit except for saying ner ner mines better than yours, and selling tickets to not quite so rich people to feel weightless for a few mins? (Yes I'd go but that's beside the point!).

Who fires the missiles, launches the bombs, deploys helicopters, sends aircraft carriers with jumpjets, drops the bombs?
Causing massive destruction and we all know who is disproportionately impacted? In so many ways? Hmm. Women and children! And it's hardly mentioned, not as important as the coverage of soldiers, ships, guns.

I won't go on but I could!

And you think who. Labour?

Would somehow save the climate?

USA (bonkers emissions and per person), China, India (both low pp but massive populations), ...

Labour (who have seemingly been focusing on making themselves unelectable) will make a big impact on this... Really?!

Imo makes no odds they have lot of support and no real opposition.

What is going on is hardly trivial.
Climate change?
Women globally are impacted way more than men when it comes to climate change.

The current direction is that women does not mean female. The word female is going .

So. Who is impacted most by climate change? Erm .

Example because of your point. I can't see this push catching on globally at all. Obviously.

Being it home though.

Who most likely to live in poverty?
Who is committing what crime against who?
Swimming club changing communal ages there maybe 5- 60. Change where you feel comfy.
Women's rights? Gynocentric. Can't use women. People who might need abortions. Smears? Anyone with a cervix. Not linked obv, different groups.

USA scholarships uni sport. Long been way to get to uni for those otherwise no chance higher education.

Women and girls are half the world. 30 million ish in UK.

We're not trivial.

And climate change is interesting choice.

What should we do?
Nappies in Dettol. Buy less plastic. Don't drive for school run (you wasteful lazy bastard). Etc.

While very rich men blast penis shaped buses to edge of atmosphere (which up there is massively hugely damaging) in the billionaire version of mike's bigger than yours. And .. etc.

No thank you.

How people don't get this (not here specifically, but when considering all aspects of politics) is beyond me.

I do get why you feel like this. But I don't fall into the category of we're all doomed. Sort out women's rights then we'll talk about climate change.

Tory

There is literally no issue more important than climate change (and that includes my one about democracy vs fascism). There can't be, because all questions about how society works become meaningless if the planet is rendered incapable of habitation by a society in the first place.

How people don't get this (not here specifically, but when considering all aspects of politics) is beyond me.

Sex and gender is important but aren’t a livable environment in the face of climate change and avoiding the worst excesses of fascism equally important?

No. Not when half the populations rights are being removed. It's hardly a single issue. It changes everything. And the Tory's can hardly be described as the worst excesses of fascism for goodness sake.

avoiding the worst excesses of fascism

The Tories aren't in everyone's good books, but they are still far from the above extreme.

Sex and gender is important but aren’t a livable environment in the face of climate change and avoiding the worst excesses of fascism equally important? That one issue alone wouldn’t make me vote for the incompetent tories.

Tory. If any party that redefines ‘woman’ gets in, we’re fucked. That’s the bottom line.

Fair enough, obviously.

I see you on another board a lot and have done for ages, for me a shame to hear that.

I have been here for yonks and have always posted honestly. On this, with NI, I was (am) worried. I really hope my concerns are not warranted. And that's all.

I'm sorry I've pissed you off, didn't mean to but obviously totally did.

Thanks for letting me know.

Cheese I'm not replying to you any more, on this or any other thread, as you aren't posting in good faith and I don't need the stress. Good night.

I think we're coming at this from totally different angles and doubt middle ground.

I suddenly thought, what about NI?
Given the history.
Hoping for peace. Obviously. No way of predicting my predicting the future though.
The actions of mainland (essentially England).

I raised as came to mind and made me worry. I don't know all the treaties, NI laws around terrorism, clauses and agreements etc.

I thought IF this includes NI then it impacts one group way more than everyone else. Obviously.
And even this law being applicable feels like a potential problem.

I think your views are-

In practice removing to Ireland would be unenforceable so kind of not a problem.

It's for terrorists, those who radicalise etc who are a danger to UK, and only if dual passport held can happen.

Thinking govt would fit up people in NI is just bizarre, they doing it because Isis etc.

Sorry that was precis hope that's more or less ok?

Just two completely different approaches.

Maybe it's,

You thinking of present
Me thinking of past and future

Dunno.

CheeseMmmm what are you on about?

An Irish person has the right to live in the UK, to vote in the UK, and to travel between the UK and Ireland. There are numerous agreements in place. There is no need for a British passport.

Removing a British passport from someone who previously had both an Irish and a British one would not prevent that person from travelling to, living in, working in, voting in, the UK.

You can't exile someone from NI to ROI because that person can just walk across the border again quite legally. They could get on a boat or a plane to the UK mainland.

Removing a British passport would be largely symbolic.

The government has been able to do this since just after the 7/7/2005 bombings. The main change in this bill is about being able to do it to people who are incommunicado, like off fighting for ISIS somewhere in the Middle East. The Home Office said: “British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm. The nationality and borders bill will amend the law so citizenship can be deprived where it is not practicable to give notice, for example if there is no way of communicating with the person.”

There are some online quotes from handwringers who think this makes their own citizenship second rate, as Lobster alluded to. But dual nationality is in itself a privilege - I have the ability to claim a second passport and choose not to, for example. But am I in danger of being deported? No, because I'm not a spy or a terrorist. In fact, it's quite easy not to be a spy or a terrorist. The vast majority of us "foreign types" manage it quite easily.

What if it was something not to do with sectarianism though?

That would mean not for that either?

I specifically said the idea that Jewish people would be targeted was a strange thing to jump to, the govt have groups that are obvious they would target.

Northern Ireland not all anyone with an Irish passport on mainland! Northern Ireland.

It's not possible there so that's really good.

You don't think the govt having this power could cause any problems, that in theory they could remove from NI?

The theoretical is not possible?

That's really reassuring.

Given everything I don't think having a sudden concern about this is ' nonsense'.

You have reassured me it is not even a theoretical possibility though so that's very reassuring.

Lots of people just don't think citizenship should ever be revoked, unless it;s gained fraudulently, because they think the nature of citizenship is that it is permanent, that to make it something anyone can be stripped of means it is not really naturalized citizenship at all but a kind of secondary tier.
That's a fair point but technically the secondary nationality could have been acquired later in life anyway, with the individual having been born British.

And having seen a teenager radicalized by his parents called terrorists rather than insurgents or enemy combatants, so they could be allowed to rot indefinitely in an off-shore jail cell, I would never assume that a bill like this is not going to be misused.
Well I can't really respond to that, someone you know is accused of terrorism and you disagree - I have no details and no way to form an opinion so that information is of no use to me.
I'm not naive enough to assume the government is always pleasantly neutral and/or doesn't make mistakes. But the idea that faking a conviction for terrorism or espionage is an easy way to remove someone from the UK is patent nonsense. It would be incredibly laborious.
We can't even deport paedophiles and murderers at the end of their sentences easily, and I'm referring to foreign nationals with no UK citizenship at all. What makes you think the UK government would suddenly pull out all the stops to frame individuals who happened to have dual nationality?
Specifically, for some unknown reason, Irish people and British people who are Jewish?