Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministenders: One for the Women

977 replies

RedToothBrush · 08/03/2018 10:23

Just remember that women are more likely to be worried about Brexit.

Their women's and workers rights are more at risk from departure from the EU, the ECJ and potentially the EHCR.
They are more likely to be worried as EU citizens in the UK due to taking time to have and raise families.
They are more likely to have been badly affected by austerity and an economic downturn will hit them first.
If they are leavers they are more likely to have changed their minds.
They are less likely to be MPs so have less representation.
They are more likely to be feeling politically unrepresented by any party and unsure of who they will vote for at the next election.
They are more likely to get abuse for expressing a political opinion. Many report having been subjected to sexual harassment from political colleagues.
They are more likely to be the target of abuse on social media.
They are earn less than their political colleagues, they earn less than their media colleagues, they earn less than their business colleagues. They are less likely to be in powerful lobby groups.

Then there's #metoo

And to cap it off women's groups are finding it hard to get their voice heard, and are frequently being labelled as hysterical or bigoted for merely wanting to discuss things and be reassured that their fears are acknowledged. They are frequently dismissed as liars or over sensitive.

This is 2018.

It doesn't feel progressive. It doesn't look equal.

Brexit has more of an impact on women.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
DGRossetti · 09/03/2018 15:25

Well forgive me what I should have said no one trusted Cameron who I think was a remainer

He was.

Thanks to a (brief) fascination with politics from DS, we actually sat front-row in a "Cameron Direct" just before the 2010 election. Much as I despise him for a lot of reasons, he gave a cogent, impassioned, realistic, and honest defence of why the UK was so much better off in the EU ( "The UK is a trading nation" ) . However, all the audience wanted to talk about was "sending foreigners home". Eventually he managed to get an audience member to ask an NHS question. They were a South African anaesthetist who asked why they were working in a country that despised foreigners.

CCHQ used to post a lot of the CD footage on their website. This one has never been seen since ...

MimpiDreams · 09/03/2018 15:28

Actually I think its ignorant to persistently call others ignorant. Misinformed sounds much more refined.

I don't think 'misinformed' works at all. They were informed but chose to ignore that information. As another poster said, it's wilful ignorance.

Icantreachthepretzels · 09/03/2018 15:32

But to vote to destroy a country, or to neglect to vote in the most crucial decision the nation has faced since the end of the 2ww, because you don't trust one man - even when there are plenty of others, more reputable, more honest, more expert - none politicians, agreeing with him ...

I'm sorry, there is no defence.

womanformallyknownaswoman · 09/03/2018 15:39

I can't understand why people don't see Brexit for what it is - a huge f*ing distraction for the main game of the Tories asset stripping the public purse and laying the legislative groundwork to provide income for them when thrown out of office - started by Thatcher, carried on by Blair and now come to the final hurdle under Cameron/May. It's always about the money not the fluff and noise - the voters have been very misled.

DGRossetti · 09/03/2018 15:40

started by Thatcher, carried on by Blair

Hmm
Icantreachthepretzels · 09/03/2018 15:46

Yes - a huge fucking distraction that's going to cause businesses to fold, rights to be lost, the pound to plummet (further), the economy to crash, the banking sector to up sticks and leave, prices to rise, living standards to fall and maybe - if we're really lucky - food shortages, and no planes flying... oh yeah and that pesky thing about not being able to get the isotopes for cancer treatments.
How foolish of us to be so distracted by something so very inconsequential.

It's a well known fact (amongst those of us that listen) that brexit is a battle in a tory party civil war and that it only exists because Cameron didn't have the nerve to face down his right wing. And it's true, those same ideologues are wed to the idea of destroying the nhs, paring back services and making us a tax haven for the super wealthy. But brexit is a large part of the way they intend to achieve that - not a distraction.

Icantreachthepretzels · 09/03/2018 15:54

And of course potential civil war in Northern Ireland. We mustn't allow ourselves to get distracted by the prospect of a return to violence in part of our country.

woman11017 · 09/03/2018 16:06

I've been ill for 7 months hoping you are much better soon cat Flowers

TalkinPeace · 09/03/2018 16:08

Before the referendum I thought the leaflets and message given by the Remain campaign were such arrogant London-centric crap that I took the time to phone, email and write to them.
They never had the courtesy to reply
And then they wondered
(a) why I will not give them money
(b) they lost

What really grates is that arrogant incompetent little wazzocks who ran that campaign are still drawing jammy salaries in the "Open Britain" campaign - and continue to be utterly ineffective.

DGRossetti · 09/03/2018 16:09

And of course potential civil war in Northern Ireland. We mustn't allow ourselves to get distracted by the prospect of a return to violence in part of our country.

Part ?

If history has taught us anything, it's that the (p)IRA were outstandingly effective wherever they operated. People have either forgotten, or just simply don't believe how bad it was.

That said, it's possible that by letting Brexit run, Sinn Fein have made a determination that he most likely outcome of a hard Brexit will be their stated political aim - the 6 counties returned to Ireland.

And in the same way the DUP couldn't give a flying fuck about mainland Britain, they might just discover how little of a fuck England gives about the DUP.

prettybird · 09/03/2018 16:21

Maybe that's why Scotland voted so strongly to remain: it kept its distance from the "official" campaign. It had see the damage done to the Labour Party by its close association with the Tories during the IndyRef.

Going back to the monarchy if I could be bothered to care enough Wink, I find it disrespectful to Scotland that the queen is referred to as Queen Elizabeth II. She isn't. She is Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. She is Queen Elizabeth II of England Hmm

I think her advisers advised her wrongly on that one. Hmm

(by the same token, Scots with any historical awareness will always refer to King James as James the 1st and 6th, as he was the 6th King James of Scotland even if he was only the first King James of England Grin)

woman11017 · 09/03/2018 16:22

Some corking speeches in the HOL desperately trying to hold on to democracy on this wet little island.

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/56ba4c0d-eed2-4d4b-b803-0f9d0679e115?in=20:06:18&out=20:13:10 …

brexit was never about brexit.

DGRossetti · 09/03/2018 16:29

Going back to the monarchy if I could be bothered to care enough wink, I find it disrespectful to Scotland that the queen is referred to as Queen Elizabeth II. She isn't. She is Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. She is Queen Elizabeth II of England

Er, if you had watched "QI", this was addressed Grin. I can't remember exactly, but all monarchs regnal indices have obeyed a convention for centuries. Charles will be Charles III (if he so chooses) of both Kingdoms, and William would be William V.

DGRossetti · 09/03/2018 16:30

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Style

If only one monarch has used a particular name, no ordinal is used; for example, Queen Victoria is not known as "Victoria I", and ordinals are not used for English monarchs who reigned before the Norman conquest of England. The question of whether numbering for British monarchs is based on previous English or Scottish monarchs was raised in 1953 when Scottish nationalists challenged the Queen's use of "Elizabeth II", on the grounds that there had never been an "Elizabeth I" in Scotland. In MacCormick v Lord Advocate, the Scottish Court of Session ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that the Queen's title was a matter of her own choice and prerogative. The Home Secretary told the House of Commons that monarchs since the Acts of Union had consistently used the higher of the English and Scottish ordinals, which in the applicable four cases has been the English ordinal.[120] The Prime Minister confirmed this practice, but noted that "neither The Queen nor her advisers could seek to bind their successors".[121] Future monarchs will apply this policy.[122]

womanformallyknownaswoman · 09/03/2018 16:34

we'll see - I still say watch where the money goes and never think that any of the govt really care about the impact on voters or the country - to think otherwise means you don't understand Cluster B behaviour - they are always in it for their self interest and income but insist otherwise. They don't care really about Brexit but want you to believe they do - it's an end to a distraction and if it works it's a bonus - if it doesn't well they still win anyway.

NB who wins irrespective of whether Brexit goes ahead or not? Who has interests in the corporates winning contracts (via mates and back handers)? Who will walk into corporate jobs when they leave govt/ or are out voted? Who will join lobbyists and Big 4 consulting and corporates in health, defence, transport, utilities etc - What legislative framework have they put in place that benefits them and their interests when they leave office ——— the money trail is so obvious…

Icantreachthepretzels · 09/03/2018 16:35

It works both ways - any future James would be James VII. Though James i and VI is referred as such down here as well - it's a bit of a mouthful, so the next James - whenever he may be - will go with highest regnal number (assuming there is still a united crown).

prettybird · 09/03/2018 16:35

Might be the convention but doesn't stop me thinking it is disrespectful to Scotland Grin

It could have been avoided by her taking a name that was new to both countries - but I can understand why she didn't want to change her name (as monarchs often did on ascending the throne).

If Scotland has achieved her independence by the time Charles or William comes to the throne, maybe they will indeed change their name to avoid the issue Wink

woman11017 · 09/03/2018 16:46

@DailyMirror
Screaming children's tears of pain after mum is bundled into immigration van www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/where-going-screaming-childrens-tears-12157805 …

Motheroffourdragons · 09/03/2018 16:51

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on behalf of the poster.

Motheroffourdragons · 09/03/2018 16:55

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on behalf of the poster.

DGRossetti · 09/03/2018 16:57

Might be the convention but doesn't stop me thinking it is disrespectful to Scotland

Well take it up with the Queen Smile. AIUI that article makes it clear that it's her decision alone, and not subject to statute ?

A little like "the national anthem" which is merely a convention too. So I hope that Charles III Grin lets it be known that he prefers "Jerusalem". Especially as he is such a Parry fan he curated a good documentary about him on the BBC a while back ...

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011g941

TalkinPeace · 09/03/2018 16:57

Re the Monarchy, Charles should be passed over as he is a wazzock
and William should use his second name when he becomes king Grin

DGRossetti · 09/03/2018 17:01

Re the Monarchy, Charles should be passed over as he is a wazzock

Choosing Kings is so Anglo-Saxon. We have to go with the Norman divine right by birth etc ....

Icantreachthepretzels · 09/03/2018 17:02

The convention was only agreed in the 1950s - so it doesn't really apply to any of the previous monarchs (the then home secretary cites precedent - but as James ii shows it wasn't technically true). But it does mean in theory that England will one day jump from James II to James VIII. Won't be disrespectful though - just a quirk of history and a bit of a bore to have to explain.

DGRossetti · 09/03/2018 17:02

(posted too soon)

We have to go with the Norman divine right by birth etc .... bloody immigrants. Coming over here, replacing our laws and customs.

Swipe left for the next trending thread