This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stuk  Top half 15 Sep 15 3.06pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 2.56pm
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 2.00pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 1.48pm
The gender balance of the cabinet stuff is hilarious: "There are 16 women in the cabinet and only 15 men, praise be to Jeremy" "How many women are allowed to vote in cabinet?" "Two thirds" "How many men are?" "Three quarters" "Hang on..."
I've no idea what your point was though. I've made up the figures, which was lazy. My point is that when the shadow cabinet actually votes on stuff, it's a majority of men. I think it's 12 men and 10 women who actually make the decisions, so that'll be 80% of men have a vote, but 62.5% of women do. And lets be honest, the decisions will actually be made by the leader, the deputy and the shadow chancellor.
I'm still unsure how you shadow a position that doesn't actually exist too.
Optimistic as ever |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Seth  On a pale blue dot 15 Sep 15 3.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 2.56pm
"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 15 Sep 15 3.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mapletree at 15 Sep 2015 1.01pm
Quote
I think it's definitely an issue most of the general public are relatively unaware of. Be it the treatment of meat and dairy farmers by the supermarkets who pay them incredibly poorly and play them off against each other to the barbaric treatment of animals: if Corbyn is to win the election there will clearly have to be a fairly large attitude change in the electorate, and maybe this will be one of the areas in which it will happen. In terms of the farmers, from what I have read (I'm a vegan so take a fairly keen interest in the subject) I highly doubt that they would be concerned if the ethics of animal farming are improved - they are far more concerned about being paid better and being provided with greater job security. Actually in America at the moment in the onrunning dispute between farmers and chicken companies, a common concern raised by the farmers is being forced in to treating animals so unimaginably horribly. ----------------------------------- What's worse, a vegan or Prescott at the helm? Let's be honest, a salad dodger has to be worse for the farmers. According to Twitter and Facebook, whether or not there is any truth in it, Vegetarian is an ancient derogatory term for a gormless idiot who couldn't fish, hunt or ride.
Edited by serial thriller (15 Sep 2015 3.27pm)
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 15 Sep 15 3.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Jimenez at 15 Sep 2015 1.23pm
Quote serial thriller at 15 Sep 2015 9.56am
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 15 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote serial thriller at 15 Sep 2015 9.20am
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 15 Sep 2015 8.18am
Y Quote serial thriller at 14 Sep 2015 11.25pm
Quote johnfirewall at 14 Sep 2015 7.51pm
My local MP who turned up to the hospital to protest once is now health secretary. A vegan is in charge of food and rural affairs. Emily Thornbury was tipped for a post. Surprised she wasn't the new shadow minister for construction after seeing a white van man. Ikea cabinet.
In itself not necessarily an issue but if you are a dairy / beef / poultry farmer you'll be paying close attention to what she does. There is an obvious conflict between someone who is vegan and the majority of farmers.
Indeed but that doesn't take away the fact that there is a significant conflict of interest there. If she can set aside her personal beliefs then fair play. I am not sure that the general public give a toss about animal husbandry though. Better quality of life = more expensive produce.
In terms of the farmers, from what I have read (I'm a vegan so take a fairly keen interest in the subject) I highly doubt that they would be concerned if the ethics of animal farming are improved - they are far more concerned about being paid better and being provided with greater job security. Actually in America at the moment in the onrunning dispute between farmers and chicken companies, a common concern raised by the farmers is being forced in to treating animals so unimaginably horribly. ....so what are your thoughts on Halal Products?
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The White Horse 15 Sep 15 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 3.06pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 2.56pm
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 2.00pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 1.48pm
The gender balance of the cabinet stuff is hilarious: "There are 16 women in the cabinet and only 15 men, praise be to Jeremy" "How many women are allowed to vote in cabinet?" "Two thirds" "How many men are?" "Three quarters" "Hang on..."
I've no idea what your point was though. I've made up the figures, which was lazy. My point is that when the shadow cabinet actually votes on stuff, it's a majority of men. I think it's 12 men and 10 women who actually make the decisions, so that'll be 80% of men have a vote, but 62.5% of women do. And lets be honest, the decisions will actually be made by the leader, the deputy and the shadow chancellor. Yep, and they'll be irrelevant. I'm still unsure how you shadow a position that doesn't actually exist too. That was, for me, the most farcical element of the reshuffle. The funny thing is the speed at which the men got offered all of the proper positions on the first day before all of a sudden women started getting offered the runner up stuff the next. I wonder whether they got to 15 men and 14 women and went "s***, we've cocked this up, is there anything else we can claim is a position?".
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 15 Sep 15 3.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 3.29pm
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 3.06pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 2.56pm
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 2.00pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 1.48pm
The gender balance of the cabinet stuff is hilarious: "There are 16 women in the cabinet and only 15 men, praise be to Jeremy" "How many women are allowed to vote in cabinet?" "Two thirds" "How many men are?" "Three quarters" "Hang on..."
I've no idea what your point was though. I've made up the figures, which was lazy. My point is that when the shadow cabinet actually votes on stuff, it's a majority of men. I think it's 12 men and 10 women who actually make the decisions, so that'll be 80% of men have a vote, but 62.5% of women do. And lets be honest, the decisions will actually be made by the leader, the deputy and the shadow chancellor. Yep, and they'll be irrelevant. I'm still unsure how you shadow a position that doesn't actually exist too. That was, for me, the most farcical element of the reshuffle. The funny thing is the speed at which the men got offered all of the proper positions on the first day before all of a sudden women started getting offered the runner up stuff the next. I wonder whether they got to 15 men and 14 women and went "s***, we've cocked this up, is there anything else we can claim is a position?".
Entirely plausible. Should be the first question at PMQs. "So, who are they shadowing then?"
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 15 Sep 15 3.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 3.46pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 3.29pm
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 3.06pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 2.56pm
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 2.00pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 1.48pm
The gender balance of the cabinet stuff is hilarious: "There are 16 women in the cabinet and only 15 men, praise be to Jeremy" "How many women are allowed to vote in cabinet?" "Two thirds" "How many men are?" "Three quarters" "Hang on..."
I've no idea what your point was though. I've made up the figures, which was lazy. My point is that when the shadow cabinet actually votes on stuff, it's a majority of men. I think it's 12 men and 10 women who actually make the decisions, so that'll be 80% of men have a vote, but 62.5% of women do. And lets be honest, the decisions will actually be made by the leader, the deputy and the shadow chancellor. Yep, and they'll be irrelevant. I'm still unsure how you shadow a position that doesn't actually exist too. That was, for me, the most farcical element of the reshuffle. The funny thing is the speed at which the men got offered all of the proper positions on the first day before all of a sudden women started getting offered the runner up stuff the next. I wonder whether they got to 15 men and 14 women and went "s***, we've cocked this up, is there anything else we can claim is a position?".
Entirely plausible. Should be the first question at PMQs. "So, who are they shadowing then?"
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 15 Sep 15 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 15 Sep 2015 3.58pm
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 3.46pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 3.29pm
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 3.06pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 2.56pm
Quote Stuk at 15 Sep 2015 2.00pm
Quote The White Horse at 15 Sep 2015 1.48pm
The gender balance of the cabinet stuff is hilarious: "There are 16 women in the cabinet and only 15 men, praise be to Jeremy" "How many women are allowed to vote in cabinet?" "Two thirds" "How many men are?" "Three quarters" "Hang on..."
I've no idea what your point was though. I've made up the figures, which was lazy. My point is that when the shadow cabinet actually votes on stuff, it's a majority of men. I think it's 12 men and 10 women who actually make the decisions, so that'll be 80% of men have a vote, but 62.5% of women do. And lets be honest, the decisions will actually be made by the leader, the deputy and the shadow chancellor. Yep, and they'll be irrelevant. I'm still unsure how you shadow a position that doesn't actually exist too. That was, for me, the most farcical element of the reshuffle. The funny thing is the speed at which the men got offered all of the proper positions on the first day before all of a sudden women started getting offered the runner up stuff the next. I wonder whether they got to 15 men and 14 women and went "s***, we've cocked this up, is there anything else we can claim is a position?".
Entirely plausible. Should be the first question at PMQs. "So, who are they shadowing then?"
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 15 Sep 15 4.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 15 Sep 2015 1.26pm
Quote Sedlescombe at 15 Sep 2015 12.56pm
Edited by Sedlescombe (15 Sep 2015 12.57pm)
How do you come to that conclusion. If their kids aren't in the schools they is no commitment to them
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 15 Sep 15 5.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 15 Sep 2015 1.38pm
Just because you can afford to send your child to public school it doesn't mean that you have an issue with comprehensives. My daughter went to Independent schools both at primary and secondary level but my wife and I considered the State options. My wife was a teacher in the state sector ! Having considered the options we decided it would be in the interest of our daughter to educate her privately and we were in the fortunate financial position of being able to do so. Most certainly the state primary school we were offered never had the best of reputations. If parents have the necessary financial means then why should they not do what they feel is best for their offspring ? We all want the best for our sons/daughters and If I for example cannot afford something that another family can, then best of luck to them I say.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 Sep 15 6.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Willo at 15 Sep 2015 5.16pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 15 Sep 2015 1.38pm
Just because you can afford to send your child to public school it doesn't mean that you have an issue with comprehensives. My daughter went to Independent schools both at primary and secondary level but my wife and I considered the State options. My wife was a teacher in the state sector ! Having considered the options we decided it would be in the interest of our daughter to educate her privately and we were in the fortunate financial position of being able to do so. Most certainly the state primary school we were offered never had the best of reputations. If parents have the necessary financial means then why should they not do what they feel is best for their offspring ? We all want the best for our sons/daughters and If I for example cannot afford something that another family can, then best of luck to them I say.
All well and good, but looking at the government, it hardly shows public schools help towards a meritocratic system does it?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 15 Sep 15 6.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 15 Sep 2015 6.10pm
Quote Willo at 15 Sep 2015 5.16pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 15 Sep 2015 1.38pm
Just because you can afford to send your child to public school it doesn't mean that you have an issue with comprehensives. My daughter went to Independent schools both at primary and secondary level but my wife and I considered the State options. My wife was a teacher in the state sector ! Having considered the options we decided it would be in the interest of our daughter to educate her privately and we were in the fortunate financial position of being able to do so. Most certainly the state primary school we were offered never had the best of reputations. If parents have the necessary financial means then why should they not do what they feel is best for their offspring ? We all want the best for our sons/daughters and If I for example cannot afford something that another family can, then best of luck to them I say.
All well and good, but looking at the government, it hardly shows public schools help towards a meritocratic system does it?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.