If you want a reminder of how lucky we are to be rid of the bastards, just read Yvette Cooper in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/04/women-budget-cuts-yvette-cooper#start-of-comments
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html
Yvette Cooper
Job: Chief secretary to the Treasury
Salary: £141,866
Ed Balls
Job: Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
Salary: £141,866
“Mr Balls and Miss Cooper submitted regular claims for food, usually totalling up to £600 a month.”
If democracy means that the alternative to the current government is cyncial, amoral droids like Yvette Cooper then if it’s not dead it’s definitely having a long snooze
It is more than likely than some seriously hard times lie ahead for the UK. Not the relatively trivial fluff that’s come to pass so far but genuine hardship for the majority. When that happens then the lack of a decent, viable democratic choice would have serious implications.
The sooner someone hammers a stake through the heart of New Labour, and finishes it off once and for all, the better
“It is more than likely than some seriously hard times lie ahead for the UK….. When that happens then the lack of a decent, viable democratic choice would have serious implications.”
I agree completely. I happen to very much ‘like’ this Coalition, but even I appreciate that there has to be a viable alternative to its policies and actions.
Labour, in its current state of dysfunction, is not that alternative
“Mr Balls and Miss Cooper submitted regular claims for food, usually totalling up to £600 a month.”
Please sir, can I have some more?
They are loathesome for sure. But so are the smarmy lot who didn’t really win the election.
If I hear any more bollocks about our ‘terrible’ deficit I am going to drop the radio into the loo.
Never a mention of the 850 Billion bank bailouts, ever.
‘God I Hate New Labour’
Why?. If by now you do not understand that all three main parties (four if you count the SNP) are not all really the same, you never will. We like the USA live in a one party state. All that you see is for show, to make us think we have a choice, we don’t, we never have had a real choice. That is why we are in the mess we are in.
“We are told ferocious cuts must come because either the national debt was too high or that the annual deficit of the public sector was too wide.
However the level of the national debt, at 62.2 per cent of GDP in May, is still one of the lowest in the European Union. The deficit is already declining under the impact of moderate economic recovery and Labour’s mildly stimulative 2009 Budget.
The Treasury originally expected the deficit in this financial year to be £178bn. That was lowered to £163bn at the time of the Budget. The Office of Budget Responsibility now expects it to be £155bn. ”
Ken Livingstone in the Morning Star. Any comments?
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/92305
If you want a interesting read about the state of male-female relations, take a look at this:
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
It’s a bit excessive but makes some valid points.
I got as far as the “modern women are fat liberated whores” bit; fascinating.
I don’t really see what the objection to Cooper’s comments are. If the budget will hit women disproportionately (and it probably will) then that is a fact which many women would be interested in knowing. Hence, her claims are relevant and informative.
Heard from Hague yet? The answer is no.
Another attempt at distraction? Your boys are in charge now, Craig.
Otherwise I’m not sure I see what’s objectionable about Cooper’s point either. It was based on a study by the House of Commons library. The right are fond of kicking poor women, along with minorities, unionists, disabled people and poor people in general. Just read the piece posted above for the “they shouldn’t be working anyway, the sluts” angle.
The comments in the Guardian section cover it.
In essence, Cooper has made the tacit confession that under ZanuLabour, women were embezzling most of the public sector money.
This also accounts for why most jobseekers are men, not because men are work-shy, but because feminists are thieves, amongst other misandric things.
Also notice how these femo-fascists hide behind women and children as convenient stalking horses; thereby not only confirming men’s caring nature, but exposing the base betrayal to humanity that feminism really is.
“All feminists are thieves”. A startling insight; Germaine Greer, give it back now! But are all thieves feminists?
Strange how men who want women to stay at home not earning anything accuse women of theft and misandry when they do earn. It is the sign of a civilised country to pay parents for child care, by the way. You may argue that we’d all be better off in small tribes looking after each other’s children, but I’d like to see evidence that you’ve tried it.
@ technicolour
tech. said: “All feminists are thieves”
I said: “most jobseekers are men, not because men are work-shy, but because feminists are thieves”
It would seem I left out the word ‘most’ in front of the word feminists; this was done due to the style of not repeating words within a sentence. But your inclusion of the logically significant ‘All’, and for that, within actual quotations, exposes you as a liar.
tech. said: “Strange how men who want women to stay at home not earning anything accuse women of theft and misandry when they do earn.”
If you think that strange, then I put it to you: that ZanuLabour’s feminist corps, were worse than strange, for they actually made law to discriminate against employing white men, a la Harriet Harman’s ‘equality bill’. Accusing men of doing what feminists actually did, is a typical hypocrisy of feminists and their mangina supporters.
tech. said: “It is the sign of a civilised country to pay parents for child care, by the way.”
Under the feminist misandry of ZanuLabour, the concept of ‘parent’ has been replaced by state nurseries, state school, easy divorce, easy incrimination via SECRET family courts, and the default of guilty until proven innocent for all accused fathers in domestic disputes. In a civilized country…
tech. said: “You may argue that we’d all be better off in small tribes looking after each other’s children, but I’d like to see evidence that you’ve tried it.”
It would be illegal to try; for under ZanuLabour, nature is verboten; only homosexual ‘families’ are encouraged.
So only ‘most’ feminists are thieves. My apologies. What’s wrong with the rest of them? Or are they just gearing up to it?
For women generally to be blamed for New Labour and specifically for Harriet Harman is a bit like setting someone on fire & then charging them for the petrol.
Yvette Cooper is complaining that women will bear the brunt of the cuts. I don’t see how that proves that women were scroungers under New Labour, unless you assume that the cuts are only dealing with waste and fair to begin with. A Tory supporter might make that assumption, of course.
@ technicolour
“So only ‘most’ feminists are thieves. My apologies. What’s wrong with the rest of them? Or are they just gearing up to it?”
They already have the luxuries from marriage and divorce settlements.
“For women generally to be blamed for New Labour and specifically for Harriet Harman is a bit like setting someone on fire & then charging them for the petrol.”
No it isn’t. And I see that you readily swap out the word ‘feminists’ with ‘women’; you must have scored top marks in your ‘women’s studies’.
By the by, how do you femo-fascists, who quibble over the ‘all or some’ logic, despite the context, manage to sell the idea to the educationalists: that all men are potential rapists, and that women are never domestically violent?
@ Abe Rene
“I don’t see how that proves that women were scroungers under New Labour…”
That would be the same ZanuLabour that touted ‘equality and diversity’ in the workplace!?
If they were true to their words, then there would be more men employed and less on JSA, as there are as many men as women. Indeed there are more men than feminists, yet more feminists are waged by the public sector than men.
But then, if they were true to their word, they’d still have the mandate to govern.
Divide and rule, eh Mr Giro? I wonder what your definition of ‘feminism’ is? I wonder how many feminist writers you’ve read – at the moment you appear to be stuck out on the extreme edge with Dworkin. Try Natasha Walters, she’s good.
The trouble with your partial and, I feel, somewhat aggressive view is that it does men no service at all. Of course men are unfairly discriminated against in society’s own way – they get sent to die in useless wars, for one thing. That does not mean that women rule, just as Harriet Harman does not represent feminism. For an interesting take on female societies I suggest a study of the matriarchal bonobos.
I spent 3 years living in a female society. It was an EngLit course at university in the 90s. I quickly came to understand that I was not, as I’d naively assumed, an undergraduate student, I was in fact a ‘potential rapist’.
Perhaps Nick Clegg should issue an apology on behalf of all men a bit like the slavery farce.
brian; again, that’s Dworkin feminism; like Bush Christianity.
@ technicolour
“I wonder what your definition of ‘feminism’ is?”
feminism = the sum total of civilisation and humanity, reduced to matriarchal bonobos.
For whose benefit is education dumbed down; men, women, children, or Marxist-Feminists?
Have you studied the bonobos? Or, indeed, the birth of feminism; or the women’s rights movements? Are you aware of pay inequalities, job inequalities, and other ongoing discrimination against women? Otherwise you’re choosing to dumb yourself down, I think.
I’m an equalitist, by the way. It is obviously in no-one’s interest that education is dumbed down. I see you have, in fact, expanded your own vocabulary with the humorous Hollywood term ‘mangina’, which you seem to be using, however, with a straight face.
I’m discriminated against because I’m short, fat and ugly but I haven’t got any equality legislation to protect me. I demand fat, ugly, short people only short lists!
In fact I object to the term short list, it is offensive to us of restricted stature.
then, brian, you can lose weight, get fit and buy some decent threads. women (generally) have to remain women.
I’ll always be short though and therefore on average paid less and subject to a whole range of disadvantages. We should at least get a short person’s hour on Radio 4 every morning. http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/height_discrimination_short_guys_finish_last/index.html
Hi @Jimmy – you may remember that you and I previously discussed feminism, and I declared myself a feminist. I put forward my definition, which was something along the lines of: an awareness of the effects of traditional/religious misogyny; support for equal pay for equal work; support for women to enter professions that are seen, consciously or otherwise, as the preserve of men; educating men who are given to misogyny or gender discrimination; and educating women to avoid reinforcing their own psychological gender traps (e.g. by purchasing fashion/celebrity magazines that add undeserving validity to the beauty myth).
At the time, to your credit, you implied that these were good things, but that I was “a good hearted liberal” rather than a feminist. Since most people here will regard those things as feminism in action, perhaps you could clarify – do you see “feminism” as the strand of thinking that argues for female dominance?
Moreover, and I don’t mean this question unkindly, but could you comment on what your drivers might be for a generally anti-women stance? In the case of divorce, women tend to take more from men than vice versa simply because of the inequitable wage arrangement between the sexes, and the durability of the tradition that “the man works”. Perhaps I have this wrong, but you seem to be implying that all women are gold-diggers?
Oh and just because I’m not fit it’s ok to discriminate?