Westministenders: One for the Women

[RedToothBrush]

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.

Tbh what could we do to Russia? Nothing bar get involved in a war. Talks and dialogue may be the only thing we can do. So I don't have too much of a problem with Corbyns response to Mays speech.

Tbh what could we do to Russia? Nothing bar get involved in a war.

perhaps a cessation of chocolate rations ?

Things we could do:

• enforce more sanctions
• revoke RT's broadcasting license
• ask Russian diplomat to leave
• withdraw from world cup (which would be more effective if others also boycotted)

In fact, just googled and found this:

10 possible British responses to Russia over the Sergei Skripal affair
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/12/10-possible-british-responses-to-russia-over-the-sergei-skripal-affair

talks to trees and sosteneuto
I heard both speeches in full side by side. May's speech was about Britain and the security services and the investigation and how very serious this situation is. The leader of the opposition, Imo, at that moment in time, following that speech should have struck a note of support to the investigation and to the threat to our country. What he said was like a normal point scoring bicker back and forth PMQs and it jarred. It was wholly wrong for that moment when we have just been told that something incredibly serious that threatens National Security and peace in our country.

Whilst as opposition leader the points he made aren't inappropriate to bring up in a different arena, it was wrong then. And it seems like a lot of Labour politicians felt that discordance too. He should have risen to the occasion; he went low. It wasn't edifying.

Well, we could stop Brexit. That would hit Putin in the stomach real hard.

It is having the - ironic - effect of making even the Brexity MPs make statements about EU support. If only the media would highlight the implications of that.

And, at home, that has me jumping up and down with rage. The threat of Brexit to security was, indeed, part of 'Project Fear'. I remember a little section C4 ran, where they had a former head of MI6 explaining the importance of remaining in the EU for security. Sadly, it was all slightly drowned out by the incredible amount of noise given to the one military official who didn't want to be linked with Remain.

And is anyone remembering Teresa May's politically brilliant manouevring in the early days of the 'negotiations', where she implied security and information-sharing was a political bargaining chip?

What.a.mess.

As for Labour: well, as I think the kindest thing you can say about Corbyn's performance was that it didn't sound like a future Prime Minister. And it didn't. We're beginning the run-up to the next GE now, and he has to sound like a PM in waiting - who will be speaking, and acting, for the UK. And his response was (as previous poster said) that of a conviction politician and an opposition MP, dealing with a run-of-the-mill incident.

Nothing wrong, in theory, with raising the question of funding of parties, and how potentially compromising this is. But in the immediate aftermath of an incident like this, with all the rather serious implications it entails, with regard to international power positions and relationships, he needed to say something very different, that gave the sense he understood the domestic and non-domestic implications. And he really didn't.

I have no idea how it will play out generally - I suspect it won't make a jot of difference, really - but it did nothing to dissuade me from my rather deep misgivings about Corbyn's suitability as leader of the Party. But I seem to be in a minority on that.

And that is why Corbyn mentioned the NHS and police. He realised it was a serious incident and he wanted to make sure enough services were in place because they have been cut. In fact, there was not enough services and people from outside have been put in to name sure there is enough. You may infer different to me but it us only inference. oldbirdy

- withdraw from world cup (which would be more effective if others also boycotted)

I am afraid I just laughed at this. All this would achieve would be to spare the England team the humiliation of going out before getting to the knockout rounds.

Perhaps if our police and security forces hadn't been cut people would not be harmed in this way, what's the count 14 so far that Russia may have knocked off recently in this country?

I have to say, the ridiculous World Cup comment demonstrated the problem with having a vacuous, venal, criminal self-interested, morally-baseless individual as Foreign Secretary.

I'm so glad you reminded me of that. The one virtue Boris Johnson has is that anything Corbyn might say looks pretty good in comparison.

It sounded to me as it did to oldbirdy (and much like Milliband, the similarity in that moment of Corbyn and Trump downplaying the significance of a serious attack on us struck me too).

Well Johnson backtracked on that very quickly so it wasn't really something he was seriously proposing, I don't think.

But boycotts of the olympics which yes, isn't the same as the world cup , have been used to make political statements. And I don't think if it were deployed it would be done on its own but as a package of measures to Make A Point.

Johnson' minders back-tracked on that very, very quickly, Pain.

I'm laughing all over again when I remember it.

The man really is an utter liability. It's shameful he's there - but it cheers me up enormously when I reflect on the fact that Boris Johnson, even with his horrific ego, must finally be becoming aware that he displays his shortcomings with humiliating effect, again, and again, and again, to the extent that he has minders - babysitters - to make sure his nappy gets changed when he fails to control himself in public yet again.

But perhaps not. Perhaps he really is still delusional enough to think he could be PM? Perhaps the full shallow, venal superficiality of his character has not yet been borne in on him?

And is anyone remembering Teresa May's politically brilliant manouevring in the early days of the 'negotiations', where she implied security and information-sharing was a political bargaining chip?

Yes I've been remembering May's embarrassing juxtapositioning of security co- operation with negotiating.
She has stopped doing that now, perhaps it was a Timothyism or perhaps she has realised that if that's all we have to negotiate with it looks shabby, transparent and unstatesmanlike.

Why or why don't the benefits of strength in numbers and being the leaders in the EU gain more support in the face of actions like this?
A Russian president has authorised a murderer to act in our territory, and we still want to isolate ourselves. As I've said before we have regular military escorts of Russian patrolling vessels out of both our waters and airspace. ( You can google the stats.)

Even this doesn't encourage voters to see the benefits of avoiding isolation.

I wonder how many Russian defectors have been murdered in other countries and how other countries responded.

Good old Wiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListoffSovietanddRussian_assassinations

Yes, that's true cat it was mopped up by his grown ups

As someone said upthread, there have been a spate of suspicious murders in the UK that haven't been investigated properly so this isn't a new problem.

But regardless of whether the government has reacted appropriately or not, the point is that withdrawing from the EU means that there are fewer options available for any future government to respond robustly if they wanted to.

The whole issue of Russia is a bit of a problem for both parties, though. It's really going to be interesting to see how this plays out. And, of course, it's a problem about all that Russian money in the UK. The more I think about it, the more I realise I'm waiting to see how it will be spun by media and our two main parties with a mixture of interest, horrified fascination and even a little wry amusement.

Teresa May - has form for turning a blind eye to former 'suspicious deaths'.
The Conservatives - lots of dodgy donations.
Successive governments - allowing lots of dodgy transactions for many, many years.
The Leave campaign - don't even start.
Labour - has a wing, alas associated with Corbyn, that has been way too friendly with RT (and all that implies).

All of this against a background of the EU pushing for more transparency and stronger checks on money-laundering, a present government, in bed with a group who are vehemently opposed to checks on money-laundering and unregulated financial transactions, and a potential Labour government who seem to want more regulation.

And that's just for starters.

I wonder if there may be damaging leaks, from mysterious sources, compromising Labour's position vis a vis Russian involvement.

And, of course, you can always count on George Galloway. Who appears to be tweeting merrily that the poisoning was actually the work of the British state. Good old George. He can always be counted on to be a complete liability.

I am afraid I just laughed at this. All this would achieve would be to spare the England team the humiliation of going out before getting to the knockout rounds.

As someone said upthread, there have been a spate of suspicious murders in the UK that haven't been investigated properly so this isn't a new problem.

David Kelly ?

What about suspicious suicides ... like the spate that hit top GEC-Marconi scientists in the 80s

I've cheered up enormously, having remembered Boris Johnson's contribution. It's reminded me that you have to judge by the same measure. Corbyn definitely needs to raise his game but - when you factor in Boris Johnson's performance - it really wasn't anywhere near the bottom.

Have we had this on the list yet? Love the spin

BrexitCentral
‏*@BrexitCentral*
Unilever will announce this week that it has chosen Rotterdam over London to be its principal base, reveals @isaby. But it is the stronger anti-hostile takeover protection offered in the Netherlands - and not Brexit - which prompts the move.

And the UK couldn't have a similar protection because...?

Grasping at very weak straws and might have served their cause better by saying nothing at all.

But it is the stronger anti-hostile takeover protection offered in the Netherlands - and not Brexit - which prompts the move.

At what point does "strong anti-hostile takeover protection" become state interference in the free market though ?

That said, Cadburys ....

And the UK couldn't have a similar protection because...?

We have to assume that the EU stopped us. Oh wait, the Netherlands were one of the original six countries in the EEC, so it can't be that.