Article 50

With Labour's positive discrimination policy they may decide to put a woman up for election next time. They appear to be doing that locally
 
Neil said:
With Labour's positive discrimination policy they may decide to put a woman up for election next time. They appear to be doing that locally
Click to expand...

I'm all for positive discrimination.

IF

It means weed out the useless and only put up a worthy candidate.

IF

It means weed out the useful and put up a woman because her only asset is being a woman then it is wrong for women and society. Same goes for pushing forward any member of a minority.

What would the world be like if positive discrimination meant put up any moron for the position let them have a chance to prove what they are...

...Hang on, maybe we already do that?

:confused:
 
Last edited:
Yes...me too.
I don't think the gender of the MP matters one jot.
What matters is how they relate to their constituents.
Do they know the difficulties of the area they represent? Do they have ideas as to how those difficulties can be overcome or reduced...are they happy to go against the will of the party to represent their constituents?
I think that the Labour Party are deluded if they think that putting women up for selection will get them out of the hole they dug for themselves...their problems are many and varied, but what they just don't get is that the electorate wants to be listened to. To have their concerns acknowledged...and actions put into place to deal with the concerns.

What the electorate certainly do NOT need is sneery, snidey comments that some politicians use...They do not need the politicians to regard the electorate as brainless ill educated plebs.
 
cashman said:
They will always regard the electorate as that i reckon, arrogance knows no bounds. imho they think in general they are better and more educated than us plebs.
Click to expand...
Better educated? Perhaps, after all its they that set our standard of education.
However thousands of pounds worth of private education isn't worth tuppence without common sense!
 
It will allow him to cock a snook at us, his constituents, and at Jeremy Corbyn, the party Leader. Which tells us all we need to know about him...that he might have (misdirected)principles, but they are directed to his own ends rather than those of the town, or for that matter his party.
He has no respect for the people who voted for him or for the party he follows. He would be altogether better out of politics.
 
I think all the M.P.s that vote against article 50,whichever party they are from,should be SACKED. cos the excuse "My constituents voted to remain" is NOT GOOD ENOUGH, Referendum means will of the people, the people voted leave, so that in a democracy should be that, remove the scum is what i say.:mad:
 
Margaret Pilkington said:
I reckon he will take the cowardly line and abstain.
Click to expand...

How could you even think that?

Oh, sorry you're obviously looking at his, pathetic past performance.

Yes, life has looked bleak while he's been in power, but wait, come the next general election, he will alter his stance to include the feelings of the electorate, But, lets not be fooled again.

Even if the other choices are worse. If enough of us void our votes we could force them to start again.

I know it was a comedy film that started it, but why can't we put


NONE OF THE ABOVE?
 
I have done that in the past, but the last time I was foolish enough to think that this man knew the area, knew the people(many of them personally) and I foolishly thought he cared enough about the town and its constituents to represent us honestly...and that is how he got my vote.

I will not be fooled twice...I would rather eat my own eyeballs with a pickle fork than cast my vote for him again.
 
As usual the political pundits on here got it wrong .

Graham Jones voted to trigger Article 50 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top