Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Gutter Boy]

The partygate video boils my tinkle

If I'm going to lose 20 years of career because of over zealous restrictions and poor decision making then at least have a decent party. No hookers, cocaine or decent spread. Just a bunch of posh nonsense cases doing some cringing hokey cokey

I remember people sampling around at university and they unanimously agreed that labour had by far the best socials. Liberals were too puritanical and tories were too awkward and damaged by private schools

 

[parklane1]

That is a tiny piece of a bigger picture. Brexit was only created by Cameron to secure extra power and silence his internal opposition.
The lack of integrity runs wide and deep, but also runs upwards.
There are still plenty of really good MPs, but the only way we'll see them at ministerial level is to have other ministers and a PM with similar levels of integrity.

i am not judging any of them by what they believe or not, my point was rightly or wrongly the public voted for Brexit ( not getting involved in the rights or wrong of that decision as it as been done to death). It was the filibustering that ALL the arseholes in session carried on for days instead of getting on with their jobs. ARSEHOLES EVERYONE OF THEM.

 

[monkeybarry]

i am not judging any of them by what they believe or not, my point was rightly or wrongly the public voted for Brexit ( not getting involved in the rights or wrong of that decision as it as been done to death). It was the filibustering that ALL the arseholes in session carried on for days instead of getting on with their jobs. ARSEHOLES EVERYONE OF THEM.

And that's the really interesting point - can you have "not judging them by what they believe" AND "them not doing there jobs".
The post Brexit actions you mentioned are just a magnification of what happens all the time.
And the conversation raising the question - what do we want and expect of our Members of Parliament?
We tend to talk about them more like executives than representatives, but then also get frustrated when they don't represent.

I'll move this away from Brexit, purely because it's too polarising.
This morning I was listening to a politician talking about abortion (in the wake of the last being sent to prison) and in the debate he/she said something which is opposite of what your expectations are. This politician said, if abortion terms become an issue before the House (and I imagine they will - a conversation about terms at which termination is legal and should a custodial sentence be a ln option etc have to), it isn't the kind of issue that will be whipped or in any way come down to party politics. It will come down to personal beliefs. And that last bit is really interesting - "personal beliefs". Not constituant views. This person will swayed in small part by their religious beliefs. Is this them doing their job? Can we, should we, then judge them on that - what was the mandate we gave that individual?
Are MPs there to "follow the will of the people"? Or to "follow the views of their constituents" or "to act on behalf of the constituency using their own views and judgements" or "to act in the interests of the country, using their own views and judgements".

These are all incompatible with eachother. But also likely to all be relevant on a subjective basis.

 

[Grays_1890]

And that's the really interesting point - can you have "not judging them by what they believe" AND "them not doing there jobs".
The post Brexit actions you mentioned are just a magnification of what happens all the time.
And the conversation raising the question - what do we want and expect of our Members of Parliament?
We tend to talk about them more like executives than representatives, but then also get frustrated when they don't represent.

I'll move this away from Brexit, purely because it's too polarising.
This morning I was listening to a politician talking about abortion (in the wake of the last being sent to prison) and in the debate he/she said something which is opposite of what your expectations are. This politician said, if abortion terms become an issue before the House (and I imagine they will - a conversation about terms at which termination is legal and should a custodial sentence be a ln option etc have to), it isn't the kind of issue that will be whipped or in any way come down to party politics. It will come down to personal beliefs. And that last bit is really interesting - "personal beliefs". Not constituant views. This person will swayed in small part by their religious beliefs. Is this them doing their job? Can we, should we, then judge them on that - what was the mandate we gave that individual?
Are MPs there to "follow the will of the people"? Or to "follow the views of their constituents" or "to act on behalf of the constituency using their own views and judgements" or "to act in the interests of the country, using their own views and judgements".

These are all incompatible with eachother. But also likely to all be relevant on a subjective basis.

There was alot on this morning about the abortion story on most political commentary shows. I have my doubts that's its a political issue as more it is a medical one. The ruling on time scale is as much a safety one as it is moral and I think many this week have deliberately taken context out of this week's story to make it political rather than apply logic and medical fact. There will always be exceptions to the rule on anything and people in desperate situations but the law as it stands on abortion in this country seems both logical on both the medical and moral sides. There is certainly no real level of body dictatorship as there is now in the US but seems that their issues have spilled over to this weeks story and as I say, taken out of context seemingly on purpose.

 

[Baleforce]

There was alot on this morning about the abortion story on most political commentary shows. I have my doubts that's its a political issue as more it is a medical one. The ruling on time scale is as much a safety one as it is moral and I think many this week have deliberately taken context out of this week's story to make it political rather than apply logic and medical fact. There will always be exceptions to the rule on anything and people in desperate situations but the law as it stands on abortion in this country seems both logical on both the medical and moral sides. There is certainly no real level of body dictatorship as there is now in the US but seems that their issues have spilled over to this weeks story and as I say, taken out of context seemingly on purpose.

prompted by the culture war numpties no doubt

like you say, it’s a medical issue, and more importantly body autonomy of the person who is pregnant

 

[monkeybarry]

prompted by the culture war numpties no doubt

like you say, it’s a medical issue, and more importantly body autonomy of the person who is pregnant

And that's why it will be something the commons will deal with at some point, because it's a justice issue as well as a medical one as things stand

 

[Grays_1890]

prompted by the culture war numpties no doubt

like you say, it’s a medical issue, and more importantly body autonomy of the person who is pregnant

Yeh culture wars are getting slightly out of control mate. I watch these Sunday morning political programmes and they are becoming increasingly harder to watch when you have respected Dr's and Scientists having to defend their years of education and expertise against people screaming in their face. I find it fascinating the change in dynamic where we had women rightly fighting for their rights and making real head way but with work still to come yet the tides now turned on them and they are now being told they don't have the right to opinions in debates like the trans debate, that's a weird paradoxical change for me where we have almost gone back to saying women should be seen and not heard, but it's not now men saying that, well not in the traditional sense.

 

[glasgowspur]

Yeh culture wars are getting slightly out of control mate. I watch these Sunday morning political programmes and they are becoming increasingly harder to watch when you have respected Dr's and Scientists having to defend their years of education and expertise against people screaming in their face. I find it fascinating the change in dynamic where we had women rightly fighting for their rights and making real head way but with work still to become yet the tides now turned on them and they are now being told they don't have the right to opinions in debates like the trans debate, that's a weird paradoxical change for me where we have almost gone back to saying women should be seen and not heard, but it's not now men saying that, well not in the traditional sense.

It wasn't that long ago zero tolerance was the watch word when it came to women's rights and safety, now its seems like women's voices are being at the very best ignored.
Actually, can I still say woman?

 

[Grays_1890]

It wasn't that long ago zero tolerance was the watch word when it came to women's rights and safety, now its seems like women's voices are being at the very best ignored.
Actually, can I still say woman?

I watched some clip a while back from a comedian, can't remember who. The quip was along the lines of men being able to tell women they have no voice again but this time its just men in skirts.

I don't wanna get into it too deep on here because I am conscious of how things can be perceived and debates can go but its a strange world where from a personal perspective were GHod forbid I get sick I will be unmoved in putting my trust and belief in my Dr and the code of ethics that he is best placed in helping me the best he can, I have had nothing but good experiences in that respect despite maybe personality clashes, but the framework in which they work can't really come into question in my opinion, especially our natural reliance on them and their years of dedication to their profession. So when you see Dr's having almost their reputation and ethics taking into question on tele because of a belief over reality and things like men having periods and all sorts being laid at their door in terms of questioning their profession, I find that increasingly hard to get my head round. Generally people have more freedoms than they ever have and I 100% defend anyones right to live how they want, but there has to be a logical and respected framework around society for everyone which does not mean people can hold bigoted views, but we can't be a society level where we invited high level professionals into debates only to ridicule them on matters of opinion when they hold the facts, I see more and more of it.

To the earlier point about womens rights, for years of campaigning which is still ongoing on equal rights in sports its now a campaign thats been almost now sidelined and women like Sharron Davies whose rational debate is lets have open honest debate and talk the science are now being told to keep quiet because women can have the right to speak up about things just not all things. Women already have a smaller slice of the pie in life and sports, I think we have to be careful to make sure we are not making that slice even smaller

 

[glasgowspur]

I watched some clip a while back from a comedian, can't remember who. The quip was along the lines of men being able to tell women they have no voice again but this time its just men in skirts.

I don't wanna get into it too deep on here because I am conscious of how things can be perceived and debates can go but its a strange world where from a personal perspective were GHod forbid I get sick I will be unmoved in putting my trust and belief in my Dr and the code of ethics that he is best placed in helping me the best he can, I have had nothing but good experiences in that respect despite maybe personality clashes, but the framework in which they work can't really come into question in my opinion, especially our natural reliance on them and their years of dedication to their profession. So when you see Dr's having almost their reputation and ethics taking into question on tele because of a belief over reality and things like men having periods and all sorts being laid at their door in terms of questioning their profession, I find that increasingly hard to get my head round. Generally people have more freedoms than they ever have and I 100% defend anyones right to live how they want, but there has to be a logical and respected framework around society for everyone which does not mean people can hold bigoted views, but we can't be a society level where we invited high level professionals into debates only to ridicule them on matters of opinion when they hold the facts, I see more and more of it.

To the earlier point about womens rights, for years of campaigning which is still ongoing on equal rights in sports its now a campaign thats been almost now sidelined and women like Sharron Davies whose rational debate is lets have open honest debate and talk the science are now being told to keep quiet because women can have the right to speak up about things just not all things. Women already have a smaller slice of the pie in life and sports, I think we have to be careful to make sure we are not making that slice even smaller

It's polarisation of the argument with absolutely no interest in a compromise.

Take the trans issue.
Any sensible person would agree that it should be easier for trans people to legally change sex/gender.
Any sensible person should be able to see the possibility of the legislation as it stands being abused with very serious consequences.
I would actually say that there are more abusers out there than trans people.
So, surely a compromise can be achieved through a sensible debate.
I have known two genuine trans people in my life, both imho a bit mixed up, both not had the greatest life, but they were decent people that i was happy to call my friends.
I think don't think either would be happy at how the issue is being run at the moment.

 

[Grays_1890]

It's polarisation of the argument with absolutely no interest in a compromise.

Take the trans issue.
Any sensible person would agree that it should be easier for trans people to legally change sex/gender.
Any sensible person should be able to see the possibility of the legislation as it stands being abused with very serious consequences.
I would actually say that there are more abusers out there than trans people.
So, surely a compromise can be achieved through a sensible debate.
I have known two genuine trans people in my life, both imho a bit mixed up, both not had the greatest life, but they were decent people that i was happy to call my friends.
I think don't think either would be happy at how the issue is being run at the moment.

Yeh similarly having worked 20 years in travel I have alot of gay mates and ex colleagues and to a man or woman they feel the noise of the minority issues detracts from the more important work needed to be done at the business end. I'm not saying for a minute that it's representative of all views but it's a view I agree with. I don't think Sharon Davies should be having work cancelled and have her sponsors hounded for having sensible views, it's a turn to silliness street on what's generally more major issues.

To touch on your mixed up comment, there are alot of those at the real heart of the transfer community that feel more needs to be done about mental awareness and help for those that do struggle, unfortunately it's a fact that alot are shrouded by depression and suicide, more needs to be done to support and help that and create safe spaces to talk.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Yeh similarly having worked 20 years in travel I have alot of gay mates and ex colleagues and to a man or woman they feel the noise of the minority issues detracts from the more important work needed to be done at the business end. I'm not saying for a minute that it's representative of all views but it's a view I agree with. I don't think Sharon Davies should be having work cancelled and have her sponsors hounded for having sensible views, it's a turn to silliness street on what's generally more major issues.

To touch on your mixed up comment, there are alot of those at the real heart of the transfer community that feel more needs to be done about mental awareness and help for those that do struggle, unfortunately it's a fact that alot are shrouded by depression and suicide, more needs to be done to support and help that and create safe spaces to talk.

To pick up on the point about trans participation in sports, it boils down to inclusion vs fairness and the fairest solution IMO is to have an open category where trans people can still participate and you safeguard the integrity and fairness of women’s sports. On another note, women should also play 5 sets in tennis like the men do. Doesn’t wash anymore to say they don’t have the stamina or the fitness.

 

[glasgowspur]

Yeh similarly having worked 20 years in travel I have alot of gay mates and ex colleagues and to a man or woman they feel the noise of the minority issues detracts from the more important work needed to be done at the business end. I'm not saying for a minute that it's representative of all views but it's a view I agree with. I don't think Sharon Davies should be having work cancelled and have her sponsors hounded for having sensible views, it's a turn to silliness street on what's generally more major issues.

To touch on your mixed up comment, there are alot of those at the real heart of the transfer community that feel more needs to be done about mental awareness and help for those that do struggle, unfortunately it's a fact that alot are shrouded by depression and suicide, more needs to be done to support and help that and create safe spaces to talk.

I have a gay neice and several gay friends, none of them want to talk about any of these issues, or at least they won't admit to it if they do.
The pressure must be immense.

 

[Grays_1890]

To pick up on the point about trans participation in sports, it boils down to inclusion vs fairness and the fairest solution IMO is to have an open category where trans people can still participate and you safeguard the integrity and fairness of women’s sports. On another note, women should also play 5 sets in tennis like the men do. Doesn’t wash anymore to say they don’t have the stamina or the fitness.

I agree, I think governing bodies need to earn their money more and take each sport case by case. Conversely I think they are missing a trick here as on a purely commercial twist, the LGBTQ community is loyal and often cash rich, any sport that had a category included would be well followed and commercially and financially backed. Might be a weird way to look at it but would have more money behind it than womens sport IMO.

 

[glasgowspur]

To pick up on the point about trans participation in sports, it boils down to inclusion vs fairness and the fairest solution IMO is to have an open category where trans people can still participate and you safeguard the integrity and fairness of women’s sports. On another note, women should also play 5 sets in tennis like the men do. Doesn’t wash anymore to say they don’t have the stamina or the fitness.

If you want the same share of the purse you have to entertain for the same amount of time.
Just like a PL level player gets more money than an EL level player because they generate more money, same with women's sport.
You're effectively earning what someone is willing to pay, no one is paying £billions to watch women's sport.

 

[Jurgen the German]

If you want the same share of the purse you have to entertain for the same amount of time.
Just like a PL level player gets more money than an EL level player because they generate more money, same with women's sport.
You're effectively earning what someone is willing to pay, no one is paying £billions to watch women's sport.

The revenue debate is an interesting one and there’s no doubt men’s tennis (along with men’s sport in general) generates more revenue than women’s sport. I just don’t think it makes sense that men are on the court longer and earn the same as women. It’s not a fair balance IMO.

 

[Baleforce]

If you want the same share of the purse you have to entertain for the same amount of time.
Just like a PL level player gets more money than an EL level player because they generate more money, same with women's sport.
You're effectively earning what someone is willing to pay, no one is paying £billions to watch women's sport.

this is subjective, and I'm a very casual fan that only really watches grass court, but, women's tennis is generally more entertaining then mens as there isn't the reliance on the power serve, there is actually some tennis, moving the opponent around the court and landing that killer hit

I don't think the entertainment time argument works in that specific sport

ultimately, the money comes from advertising, it's what people buy, just be honest about the numbers

 

[glasgowspur]

this is subjective, and I'm a very casual fan that only really watches grass court, but, women's tennis is generally more entertaining then mens as there isn't the reliance on the power serve, there is actually some tennis, moving the opponent around the court and landing that killer hit

I don't think the entertainment time argument works in that specific sport

ultimately, the money comes from advertising, it's what people buy, just be honest about the numbers

Yes tennis and golf imho have lost a lot of appeal for me because of the obsession of how hard you hit the ball.
Both are strategic games where you move the ball around the court/course with precision and flair.
Very casual tennis fan, love the game but no opportunity to play it.
There's an almost balletic beauty watching the really good players from the past, loved watching hingis in her all to brief heyday, it was like chess on a tennis court.
Similar with golf, which i do play and absolutely love, the mens game just no relation to me.
500yrd plus par 5s hit with a driver and a wedge, thats nuts.

 

[Grays_1890]

this is subjective, and I'm a very casual fan that only really watches grass court, but, women's tennis is generally more entertaining then mens as there isn't the reliance on the power serve, there is actually some tennis, moving the opponent around the court and landing that killer hit

I don't think the entertainment time argument works in that specific sport

ultimately, the money comes from advertising, it's what people buy, just be honest about the numbers

Womens Tennis also benefits from being played the same time generally as men and is often mixed within the tournaments so revenues are pooled so makes more sense. Crickets getting there IMO, there is a much more concerted effort to co promote, the Ashes is being done so as is the Hundred as much as I hate that format haha.

Its a harsh reality that some womens sport is out on its own in in that respect, the numbers in football are getting there but without looking or knowing I would imagine the cost is lower? Women often have different interests than men so there peer support is not the same as the mens game in that respect either.

 

[Grays_1890]

Sturgeon distancing herself from her husband...sign he has questions to answer or the norm?