Influx of far-right posters

[Slightyamusedandsilly]

Why has the site suddenly had an influx of far-right posters? Almost overnight.

Is this a concerted campaign by the black shirts from Dover, Reform or Tommy ten names to infiltrate women's SM?

Every single thing you have said is completely alien to me

It's also worth noting how many Conservative PM / leaders have been female or BAME and how many Labour PM / leaders have been BAME. Yet the right wing are called racist or sexist by the left.

I personally think that Kemi Badenoch is turning out to be a formidable politician. Her skin colour and sex are completely and utterly irrelevant - I really don't care. What is relevant is her abilities.

I dont give a shit about BAME or female or white, stale male leaders. I care about women's rights, competence and results.

Yes I can see that given the various leaders.

So we agree that race, sex, religion etc should not be relevant and what is relevant is ability, content of character and equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome).

So in which case don't you think it strange that Labour has never had a female or BAME PM or leader when the Conservatives have had several.

I think race and ethnicity should be considered, as in the characteristics of those in power should be reviewed to monitor whether we are being governed by people roughly representative of the population.
I also think we should acknowledge that certain demographics find it easier to reach power positions than others, that the fact white men disproportionately hold power is highly unlikely to be because they are disproportionately better for the jobs, and explore what barriers other groups are facing.
I think its disappointing that Labour have only had white male leaders and would hope that work is going in to look at what's preventing other people rising to that position.
However, it does seem a bit of a mixed message to argue on one hand that we should only ever pick the people best for the job, without considering such things, while arguing that Labour only having been led by white men is a problem to address. Which one do you believe? I'm happy to say I believe the second, that there should be efforts by Labour to give opportunities to other groups. If you agree, how does that sit with your view that race and sex is irrelevant?

With the conservatives it is the best person for the job, it just happens to be Rishi, Kemi or Thatcher.

Labour seem to need quotas to get there. There’s a difference in overall culture, people and incentives in the parties.

Do you think the sex and race of a party leader matters, or is it just whoever happens to be best for the job?
Are you saying that the Conservatives have taken steps to ensure leaders who are not white men, or that its just been fortunate happenchance?
Because if you're saying the first, then what does it matter to you the sex or race of Labour leaders? And if you're saying the second, why do you see it as something positive they've achieved?
Or is your attitude to EDI a bit of a movable feast? Something that shouldn't matter except when it...matters?
I'm prepared to acknowledge disappointment in Labour on this as I'm consistent in believing it matters. What's your position?

Not true. Thatcher herself said she found it very tough as an outsider and from a middle class background to progress, although she clearly did. She has talked about how badly the old guard as she called them treated her. Thatcher rose in spite of many in her party. Although when they saw how popular she was with the public, they threw their support behind her.

Others such as sunak have not talked openly about their experience so we have no idea if they fought against the odds or it was merit based. But it is worth saying that the conservative party all most to a person chooses prime ministers who are very wealthy. Sunak, Thatcher married a man who was extremely wealthy, Boris johnson. Wealth and attendance at top public schools seems more important than anything else to the conservative party.

@OneLilacHedgehog "chooses prime ministers who are very wealthy. "

Well Starmer wasn't exactly a pauper was he? Neither was Tony Blair.

I don’t relate to these options. It’s more that someone who is talented wants to join and take it on as a career and there’s fewer barriers to getting to the top.

Re Thatcher in the post following I’m sure she faced more barriers as it’s 40 years ago and she broke new ground. She probably helped shape the conservatives which has meant Kemi, Rishi and others can succeed.

I think its an interesting subject. There seems to be a particular low tolerance for left wing women politicians I think. They tend to be reviled as common angry light weights in cheap clothes if they are WC (Raynor) and seen as faffy over emotional incompetents if they are not (Reeves).
I think this arises in some part from left wing stereotypes that has us as a combination of angry ranters and emotionally driven do gooders without the hard headed rationality to lead a country. Add sexist stereotypes into the mix and left wing women are easy targets as the first is 'unattractive' in a woman and the second buys into female stereotypes of soft be kind ineffectiveness.
This doesn't explain the Labour party's disappointing record. But does make me ponder how electable a woman leader would be with these barriers in place. Burnham is gaining traction as a 'man of the people'. 'Woman of the people' isn't even a phrase.

You’re missing the stereotypes lobbed at Kemi and Thatcher. Rishi too, outside considering women.

I think John Major was the only exception to this rule in the Tory Party.

Yes true. The true exception.
But if becoming prime minister with the conservative party was truly merit based, there would be fewer millionaires and billionaires and attendees at top public schools.

Prime minister is never a merit based appointment. Look at Liz truss, who should never have been near that position.

Still Labour can’t seem to crack how to get a female or non white leader.

I agree that competence and honesty are the only things that should matter. Unfortunately the Tories and some of their supporters don't seem that bothered about such things. See Johnson and Truss.😬

But you don't think the race or sex of a person matters. Its only their ability to do the job, isn't it?

Oh they all think its only the competence of the person that matters when they're chuntering about the evils of EDI and how it discriminates against white middle class men. Yet suddenly race and sex is important after all when it's to point score. The only consistency you'll get is Labour: Bad Tories:Good.

I think it matters that the work environment allows talented people who are non white to get to the top position. It’s good if a political party allows that as it’s a position of power.

That means a whole bunch of people around them who see their talent first over other factors.

‘Chuntering’

You’re not great at countering with posts like this.

Interesting that both @5128gap and @TooBigForMyBoots take the purely merit based approach to hiring. Didn't have you down as being so aligned with Charlie Kirk.

Its not a competition as to who's the greatest. Its just a chat on a forum.

I've explained my approach earlier in the thread. If you're interested in having me down for something or other, or who I may align with I think I make it fairly clear.

No that’s not what I was talking about, it’s not great at all. But not much point given that previous post.