Join the Labour Party and save your country!

pblakeney said:

Yes, but the price you pay will be determined by the issuer based on how long they think you will live.
1 Year, cheap; 10 years expensive.

rjsterry said:

If you are still capable you can rejoice in sticking it to the man. As pyrrhic victories go it's a good'n

pblakeney said:

It’s definitely better than the flip side where you peg it early and the issuer cashes in.

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

It’s definitely better than the flip side where you peg it early and the issuer cashes in.

in that situation I would far rather the issuer finished me off and cashed in

john80 said:

Why are we giving female candidates such a priority. There have been two female PM's in the last 30-40 year. Surely we should be going for a ethnic short man who has transitions to a women. I mean that ticks off a good few minorities in one go. Ability is secondary if you follow the current thinking. D

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Why are we giving female candidates such a priority. There have been two female PM's in the last 30-40 year. Surely we should be going for a ethnic short man who has transitions to a women. I mean that ticks off a good few minorities in one go. Ability is secondary if you follow the current thinking. D

Same point to you: it's clearly not just about ability other wise it would be roughly 8 female PMs since WW2.

There are less male nurses or primary school teachers than female to pick on two job roles. There must be systematic discrimination in these sectors against men that needs to be routed out and we should not rest until every job within the UK has a demographic within one person of the UK average and we should inspect yearly and sack accordingly.

I think you may be confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. The later is a very dangerous path. See what I did there with your rather dumb logic.

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Why are we giving female candidates such a priority. There have been two female PM's in the last 30-40 year. Surely we should be going for a ethnic short man who has transitions to a women. I mean that ticks off a good few minorities in one go. Ability is secondary if you follow the current thinking. D

Same point to you: it's clearly not just about ability other wise it would be roughly 8 female PMs since WW2.

There are less male nurses or primary school teachers than female to pick on two job roles. There must be systematic discrimination in these sectors against men that needs to be routed out and we should not rest until every job within the UK has a demographic within one person of the UK average and we should inspect yearly and sack accordingly.

I think you may be confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. The later is a very dangerous path. See what I did there with your rather dumb logic.

Have a think about why women might be over-reprrsented in nursing and primary school teaching.

Why are you happy for this injustice but need female labour leader. Go on tell us the answer to the above conundrum. Or is getting a female labour leader the token gesture that the UK needs? Maybe the market should pay men more to the teachers than females and pay females more to be bricklayers than men. Would you support this social engineering to achieve your equal status or is it only for the top jobs this matters.

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Why are we giving female candidates such a priority. There have been two female PM's in the last 30-40 year. Surely we should be going for a ethnic short man who has transitions to a women. I mean that ticks off a good few minorities in one go. Ability is secondary if you follow the current thinking. D

Same point to you: it's clearly not just about ability other wise it would be roughly 8 female PMs since WW2.

well we have chosen one third of of leaders from Eton so that does not help. Maybe we could decide that Eton has had it's quota of PMs until an equal number of state school educated leaders and or women have been elected PM

surrey_commuter said:

Labour does not elect female leaders because there are no candidates

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Why are we giving female candidates such a priority. There have been two female PM's in the last 30-40 year. Surely we should be going for a ethnic short man who has transitions to a women. I mean that ticks off a good few minorities in one go. Ability is secondary if you follow the current thinking. D

Same point to you: it's clearly not just about ability other wise it would be roughly 8 female PMs since WW2.

There are less male nurses or primary school teachers than female to pick on two job roles. There must be systematic discrimination in these sectors against men that needs to be routed out and we should not rest until every job within the UK has a demographic within one person of the UK average and we should inspect yearly and sack accordingly.

I think you may be confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. The later is a very dangerous path. See what I did there with your rather dumb logic.

Have a think about why women might be over-reprrsented in nursing and primary school teaching.

Why are you happy for this injustice but need female labour leader. Go on tell us the answer to the above conundrum. Or is getting a female labour leader the token gesture that the UK needs? Maybe the market should pay men more to the teachers than females and pay females more to be bricklayers than men. Would you support this social engineering to achieve your equal status or is it only for the top jobs this matters.

Nobody accuses male nurses of being there as a token gesture. Likewise male primary school teachers.

If a job requires working hours that are only suitable for people who have someone else to look after their children, then there isn't equality of opportunity.

And you'll have a hard time arguing that party leaders get the job on merit, especially given Labour's previous choice.

Was Margaret Thatcher or Theresa May there as a token gesture. If you point is specifically about the Labour party then I am all ears as to how women are being prejudiced against. Corbyn did get their on merit. He was chosen by the members of the Labour party as the guy that was closest to their interests. The fact he was rubbish as an opposition leader is the Labour members problem who voted for him.

In terms of childcare whilst it is true that when sitting MP's are expected to work late on the 4 days per week that Westminister sits for. If you include the times they are recessed then they technically get more holiday than a school teacher. As with most professional occupations if you want a job then you either have to arrange childcare or have a supporting other half that takes up the slack. It should be noted that women could choose not to have children or become an MP when the children are teenagers where the occasional late night is not such a drama unless you are Abbots child and need a curfew to stop you getting banged up for assaulting coppers. Your drive for the equality of outcome is clouding your thinking.

rick_chasey said:

So you think things like the persistent pay gap are justified? Just wanna make this crystal clear.

Stevo_666 said:

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

So you think things like the persistent pay gap are justified? Just wanna make this crystal clear.

On an aside, I'm staggered that this still seems to be a thing. How can any company decide to pay a woman less than a man for doing the same job as a practice?

That's the thing - the gender pay gap that companies are reporting on is not looking at different pay rates for the same job. This is what it is:
"The gender pay gap is the difference between the average hourly earnings of a company’s male and female employees. If an organisation has, for example, a 5% gender pay gap it means that women earn an average of 5% less per hour (excluding overtime) than men, or in other words the average female employee would earn 95p for every £1 earned by a male employee."

So within an organisation (as I see it) any gap is mainly down to men being in more senior/better paid roles than women.