UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Dumb Ideologies]

And physically clearing the land along it to ensure it is a clearly marked demarcation.

The DUP said they will stop the supply and confidence agreement if a hard border is created. May can't do that without collapsing her majority.

Time to spend some more election-avoiding £££

Public purse is for bribing.

[Souseiseki]

The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.

regulations on airlines will be harsher under an american deal than they were in the EU. competition rules affecting things like the NHS will be harsher under an american deal than they were in the EU. we will be forced to open up our markets to american foods that were once considered unsafe under EU law and undesirable under UK law as part of an american deal. get used to this. this is your life now.

e:

The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.

British and American negotiators secretly met in January for the first formal talks on a new air services deal, aiming to fill the gap created when Britain falls out of the EU-US open skies treaty after Brexit, according to people familiar with talks.

In a sign of the battle Britain faces to replicate its existing rights, the talks were cut short after US negotiators offered standard bilateral conditions that would reduce access and in effect exclude all main UK-based carriers because they would not meet the criteria for ownership and control.

One person attending the London meetings to “put Humpty Dumpty back together” said: “You can’t just scratch out ‘EU’ and put in ‘UK’.” A British official said it showed “the squeeze” London will face as it tries to reconstruct its international agreements after Brexit, even with close allies such as Washington.

Negotiators are confident of an eventual agreement to keep open the busy UK-US routes, which account for more than a third of current transatlantic flight traffic. But there are legal and political obstacles that could impede the two sides from reaching a deal in time to give legal certainty to airlines booking flights a year in advance.

“We have every confidence that the US and UK will sign a deal that is in everyone’s interests and that IAG will comply with the EU and UK ownership and control regulations post Brexit,” said International Airlines Group, which owns British Airways. Virgin Atlantic said it remained “assured that a new liberal agreement will be reached, allowing us to keep flying to all of our destinations in North America”.

Chris Grayling, UK transport secretary, declared in October that he was making “rapid progress” in reaching ambitious new airline agreements with the US and other international partners. According to FT estimates, the UK must renegotiate and replace about 65 international transport agreements after Brexit.

In its opening stance the US side rolled back valuable elements of the US-EU agreement, the most liberal open skies deal ever agreed by Washington. Its post-Brexit offer to the UK did not include membership of a joint committee on regulatory co-operation or special access to the Fly America programme, which allocates tickets for US government employees. Washington also asked for improved flying rights for US courier services such as FedEx.

The UK has also yet to formally offer the US access to overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, which were not included as part of the original US-EU deal, according to people familiar with the talks.

There are also potential issues over the continuation of antitrust exemptions, permitted by the US-EU open skies agreement, which allow airline alliances to set fares and share revenue, according to people familiar with talks.

The biggest sticking-point is a standard ownership clause in Washington’s bilateral aviation agreements that would exclude airlines from the deal if “substantial ownership and effective control” does not rest with US or UK nationals respectively. In effect it requires majority ownership by one of the two sides if an airline is to benefit.

London asked the US to adjust its long-held policy since it would exclude the three main British-based transatlantic carriers, which all fall short of the eligibility criteria. These are IAG, the owner of British Airways and Iberia; Virgin Atlantic; and Norwegian UK.

Sir Richard Branson owns 51 per cent of Virgin, making it majority UK-owned. But he is in the process of selling 31 per cent to Air France-KLM, which could complicate Virgin’s access rights to the US. US airline Delta owns the remaining stake.

The challenge is most acute for Willie Walsh, IAG chief executive, whose group must also clear the EU’s 50 per cent ownership threshold to avoid losing his European operating rights after Brexit, when UK nationals are no longer counted.

One senior EU official said the airline operator was heading for “a crunch”. “From the US point of view, there is not a single big airline that is UK-owned and controlled,” he said. “The Americans will play it hard. The mood has changed [against liberalisation], it’s the worst time to be negotiating.”

Andrew Charlton, an aviation consultant, said the negotiations with the US were likely to be “fraught with difficulties”.

“The EU has been arguing for a change to the ownership and control rule for decades but the US has never said yes. It’s been a sticking point forever. If the US has never bent before then why would they do it just for the UK?” he said, adding that such a change could set a big precedent.

British negotiators are hopeful the ownership issues can be addressed through a side agreement or memorandum of understanding giving airlines solid legal rights. But so far the US side has not gone beyond offering temporary “waivers”, on a case-by-case basis to airlines.

The UK’s EU membership also prevents the country from signing trade or aviation services agreements before the end of March 2019 when Britain is due to leave the bloc. The EU’s Brexit negotiators are insisting it seek permission for deals during any transition period.

British negotiators are hoping to convince partners such as the US to treat them as EU members during the transition period, so they do not automatically fall out of agreements during that period.

A senior UK government source said it was “nonsense to suggest that planes won’t fly between UK and US post-Brexit. Both sides have a strong interest in reaching an agreement and are very close to one.”

The US also played down fears of a looming crisis.

“Our shared aim with the United Kingdom is to ensure the smoothest possible transition in the transatlantic market,” said the state department. “Commercial aviation is key to the dynamic economic relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. Discussions are going well and, while specific dates are not set, we plan to meet again soon.”

[Souseiseki]

britain: "our laws must be made our people"

america: "our airlines must be owned by our people"

britain: "NANIIIIIII?!"

this is my interpretation of current negotiations

[Vassenor]

But at least our policy won't be dictated by Brussels. It'll just be dictated by Washington instead.

[Neu Leonstein]

Well that's a shame.

Hoped for a deal.

Unless she's ruling it out to get an upper hand later.

Nah, passporting had been ruled out within weeks of the referendum, both because of the 'no Single Market' red lines and because the French (in particular) were apparently keen to pick up business from London. That's not to say that some other kind of deal couldn't have been worked out, but it wasn't done. Now it's almost two years later and we'll hear a speech about some broad priorities on Wednesday. The ECB has said that banks need to have workable plans for their EU-located subsidiaries on their desk this quarter. Unless there's some really serious goodwill, I reckon it might be too late.

I do wonder sometimes though what life would be like if May & Co. hadn't let themselves be convinced by the editors of the far-right trash mags that the referendum was about immigration. If they hadn't bought into that one, then "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" need not have meant leaving the Single Market and all this BS could have been avoided.

[Ostroeuropa]

In June 2011 it emerged that female staff at the Equalities Office received 7.7% more pay then males on average. The information came to light following a Freedom of Information request by MP Dominic Raab. The enquiry also revealed that almost two thirds of the department's 107 staff were female.

The differences between the genders became marked from 2008 under the leadership of Harriet Harman with the pay gap almost doubling from that time and six out of seven new jobs going to women.

This is the office that sets the agenda for which issues of sexism get addressed, and controls the dynamic our government sets as standard in terms of gender power relations.
In terms of who is responsible for what, it's far more reasonable to suggest we're a matriarchy than a patriarchy.
It's also worth noting that this office, 2/3rds women (who are paid more than their male counterparts, and that this trend is escalating), is the same office that refuses to countenance mens issues being on the agenda, and routinely pushes a doctrine that erases mens issues.

Notably, they also tend to push for more women in areas in order to achieve equality, but not more men in several professions, including their own office. Their pay gap also suggests that the culture of this particular office is slanted in womens favor, and I remind you, this is ultimately the office that sets the stage for how gender power dynamics are addressed and refined. Crucially, they also tend to push the idea misandry doesn't exist. No shit they think that, barely any of them experience it.

My suggestion would be to balance the numbers by explicitly hiring enough mens advocates to bring the ratio to 50/50, which would still leave then underrepresented, but more represented.

To call us a matriarchy seems more apt than calling us a patriarchy using the kind of feminist logic that would be similar to calling a government environmentalist, when every single position in the environment agency was given to and held by climate change deniers who set policy according to that belief.
Mens issues not getting a fair hearing is almost certainly due in part to this institutions bias and lack of diversity, causing them to set an agenda that ignores mens experiences and issues.

Since this institution is the one that sets the agenda for gender relations, I'd call it matriarchal.

[Questers]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/04/women-march-in-london-gender-equality-international-womens-day?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

"I’m marching for the hidden history. I’m marching for the women nobody knows about. I’m marching for the women nobody speaks about. I’m marching for the women who suffer in silence. I’m marching to say we hear you." says representative party that thinks women who do things they think are icky should be punished until they do what the mostly male lawmakers have decided is acceptable

Bla bla bla.

Feminism today is all posturing.

[Questers]

I do wonder sometimes though what life would be like if May & Co. hadn't let themselves be convinced by the editors of the far-right trash mags that the referendum was about immigration. If they hadn't bought into that one, then "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" need not have meant leaving the Single Market and all this BS could have been avoided.

Tfw liberals realise the inherent problems of freedom of speech.

That's hard though. It's not really something that anyone has any historical samples for, and there aren't really macroeconomic models with the sort of granular detail that could reflect specific customs arrangements. What you have to do is come up with a guesstimate of what that would do to exports, imports, productivity and/or the exchange rate and then feed that through the model. That assumption will never end up really pleasing anyone, and so whatever attempts anyone has made at quantifying some of these effects have been ruthlessly attacked for being insufficiently patriotic. So even if you have to try and come up with numbers for your work, like the BoE or HM Treasury or whatever, you'd try and keep them internal.

The investment banks are happy to keep pumping our forecasts though. Problem with those is that they're really just stabs in the dark, and unless you find a report that specifically goes through the consequences of particular scenarios, what you get is a central projection. Which, at the moment, would be for the UK to fold on most things and broadly speaking stay in the EU in all but name. Call it the one upside of the unwillingness of the public or politicians to engage with any detail - the average voter would never even know!

A lot of people before the referendum said "we just want the facts" and that having given them the facts, they could make up their minds themselves. The problem is as you say it is, though: projections are hard, and they're often based on random inputs as well (like were people in the late 70s predicting North Sea oil?) The brexit referendum clearly shows how inadequate our political system is for mass, cogent, political conversation.

[Neu Leonstein]

Tfw liberals realise the inherent problems of freedom of speech.

Eh, to be clear, I'm not one of those free speech absolutists. I'm a liberal, yes, but I'm also a pessimist about the willingness (if not ability) of people to transcend past the Savannah monkey stage. And no, I haven't worked out yet how to fit all that together. It's a work in progress.

A lot of people before the referendum said "we just want the facts" and that having given them the facts, they could make up their minds themselves. The problem is as you say it is, though: projections are hard, and they're often based on random inputs as well (like were people in the late 70s predicting North Sea oil?) The brexit referendum clearly shows how inadequate our political system is for mass, cogent, political conversation.

Well... yes, and no. The UK's political system clearly wasn't built around referendums, and even though it does allow for them, clearly it wasn't intended to decide on an issue like this. Don't take it from me, take it from David Davis.

But even conditional on a silly referendum having been called and it having been answered the way it was, the way it was interpreted wasn't a given. The whole 'we need to leave the Single Market and we need to be free from the ECJ and probably bring back the Empire' was probably not what people had in mind when they put their cross. We don't know, because the whole point is that it was a secret ballot and we can't look into people's heads.

It only gained its truthiness in Westminster. The cabinet very early settled on anti-immigration sentiment having become the Will Of The People, and then decided that the only way to respect democracy was to implement a hard Brexit. And not only that, but while a past government's decision is considered not to necessarily bind a current government's ability to make decisions (that is, Parliament is allowed to change its mind), this idea is being ruled out as undemocratic when applied to the voting public as a whole. Hence the refusal to even ask in the form of a second ballot that would allow the affirm or reject whatever actual post-Brexit arrangements can be achieved.

So yes, lots wrong with the way democracy works these days. But even conditional on our democracies being what they are, unnecessary mistakes can and have been made.

[Imperializt Russia]

But you can't handle "Men are oppressed too?"
You're ignoring context of those objections.

"Men are oppressed too." = "Black lives matter."

Does that help you?

Some men are absolutely underprivileged compared to other men, and it is not a case of "all men hold superior stature to all women". Indeed, an intersectional reading would state that a young, working-class male is disadvantaged compared to a young, middle-class male, and similarly to other working-class women (the class component of intersectionality), and in other areas are privileged above some working-class women in some way. "Positive" discrimination where women are favoured over men, but as sexualised objects (arguments are made that women in the service industry are subject to this, and this invalidates the "favour" the women receive, because it's not useful and not respectful) is not the same thing as "male privilege" where, say, a male colleague is more likely to be listened to, respected, treated like they know what their job even is than a female colleague on the basis that the person is simply a male.

"Men are oppressed" in patriarchy, indeed. Being seen as either unsuitable or less capable childrearers in custody cases, for example. As with the "positive discrimination" point above, women are awarded custody more often, and mothers spared longer jail sentences, because the male-led society sees childrearing as women's work and thus the woman must be able to tend to the child because that is her expected sociological role. This isn't "privilege", because in order to receive this "favour", her status as a person is devalued to "babymaker".
But in oppression of men obviously, it's subsets of men, not "men" as a monolithic group. It's not "women" as a monolithic group either. But it is many subsets of women, in a society led by men, many of whom are in an age bracket that literally predates "feminism" and inherits a disdain of the emergence of "feminism" from their parents and learned values - which is passed down to their children - and in some cases, to our generation, Ostro.

Men are oppressed. But it's not "black lives matter". They're not oppressed for being men.
It's more like "all lives matter". Yes, they do. Whites are dime-a-dozen, blacks don't have social value to many arms of authority, and get treated like such.
Women have little social value to many arms of authority. Men are dime-a-dozen. We are expendable, not disposable.

[Imperializt Russia]

In June 2011 it emerged that female staff at the Equalities Office received 7.7% more pay then males on average. The information came to light following a Freedom of Information request by MP Dominic Raab. The enquiry also revealed that almost two thirds of the department's 107 staff were female.

The differences between the genders became marked from 2008 under the leadership of Harriet Harman with the pay gap almost doubling from that time and six out of seven new jobs going to women.

This is the office that sets the agenda for which issues of sexism get addressed, and controls the dynamic our government sets as standard in terms of gender power relations.
In terms of who is responsible for what, it's far more reasonable to suggest we're a matriarchy than a patriarchy.
It's also worth noting that this office, 2/3rds women (who are paid more than their male counterparts, and that this trend is escalating), is the same office that refuses to countenance mens issues being on the agenda, and routinely pushes a doctrine that erases mens issues.

Notably, they also tend to push for more women in areas in order to achieve equality, but not more men in several professions, including their own office. Their pay gap also suggests that the culture of this particular office is slanted in womens favor, and I remind you, this is ultimately the office that sets the stage for how gender power dynamics are addressed and refined. Crucially, they also tend to push the idea misandry doesn't exist. No shit they think that, barely any of them experience it.

My suggestion would be to balance the numbers by explicitly hiring enough mens advocates to bring the ratio to 50/50, which would still leave then underrepresented, but more represented.

To call us a matriarchy seems more apt than calling us a patriarchy using the kind of feminist logic that would be similar to calling a government environmentalist, when every single position in the environment agency was given to and held by climate change deniers who set policy according to that belief.
Mens issues not getting a fair hearing is almost certainly due in part to this institutions bias and lack of diversity, causing them to set an agenda that ignores mens experiences and issues.

Since this institution is the one that sets the agenda for gender relations, I'd call it matriarchal.

This is an exceedingly facile view of "equality", the same kind that thinks a flat tax rate is a good idea because "everyone pays the same proportion of tax" or "but everyone can apply for a specified form of photo ID so voter ID laws can't be oppressive and maliciously constructed!".

This is one department of 107 people in a government that easily employs and contracts close to 4 million people (when you factor in NHS, schools etc) [note - [url=https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/bulletins/publicsectoremployment/september2017]it is apparently 5.5 million, with 3 million employed directly by central government[/ur] - ]
If this disparity were common among dozens of the hundreds of government departments, it would matter. You can barely get a percentage population in this office.

You don't appear to have linked a source. Dominic Raab, being hostile to "muh feminism" has every reason to try and bias data in his favour. Is the equalities department senior staff made up mostly of women? Are they paid more than lower ranks of staff within the department? Well see if you average all their pay then on average women are paid more! checkmate, feminazis!

Does an engineering firm of 20 people employ no women? That's not technically an issue. Does one moderate engineering firm of 2000 people employ only 20 women? That's kind of a problem, but still, that's just two companies and a fraction of the industry.
When only 20% of engineering graduates are women, and only 11% of engineering posts are held by women, and 25% of female engineers leave engineering entirely by 30 (for whatever reason, including family) then... there's something :systemic: occurring.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is the office that sets the agenda for which issues of sexism get addressed, and controls the dynamic our government sets as standard in terms of gender power relations.
In terms of who is responsible for what, it's far more reasonable to suggest we're a matriarchy than a patriarchy.
It's also worth noting that this office, 2/3rds women (who are paid more than their male counterparts, and that this trend is escalating), is the same office that refuses to countenance mens issues being on the agenda, and routinely pushes a doctrine that erases mens issues.

Notably, they also tend to push for more women in areas in order to achieve equality, but not more men in several professions, including their own office. Their pay gap also suggests that the culture of this particular office is slanted in womens favor, and I remind you, this is ultimately the office that sets the stage for how gender power dynamics are addressed and refined. Crucially, they also tend to push the idea misandry doesn't exist. No shit they think that, barely any of them experience it.

My suggestion would be to balance the numbers by explicitly hiring enough mens advocates to bring the ratio to 50/50, which would still leave then underrepresented, but more represented.

To call us a matriarchy seems more apt than calling us a patriarchy using the kind of feminist logic that would be similar to calling a government environmentalist, when every single position in the environment agency was given to and held by climate change deniers who set policy according to that belief.
Mens issues not getting a fair hearing is almost certainly due in part to this institutions bias and lack of diversity, causing them to set an agenda that ignores mens experiences and issues.

Since this institution is the one that sets the agenda for gender relations, I'd call it matriarchal.

This is an exceedingly facile view of "equality", the same kind that thinks a flat tax rate is a good idea because "everyone pays the same proportion of tax" or "but everyone can apply for a specified form of photo ID so voter ID laws can't be oppressive and maliciously constructed!".

This is one department of 107 people in a government that easily employs and contracts close to 4 million people (when you factor in NHS, schools etc) [note - [url=https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/bulletins/publicsectoremployment/september2017]it is apparently 5.5 million, with 3 million employed directly by central government[/ur] - ]
If this disparity were common among dozens of the hundreds of government departments, it would matter. You can barely get a percentage population in this office.

You don't appear to have linked a source. Dominic Raab, being hostile to "muh feminism" has every reason to try and bias data in his favour. Is the equalities department senior staff made up mostly of women? Are they paid more than lower ranks of staff within the department? Well see if you average all their pay then on average women are paid more! checkmate, feminazis!

Does an engineering firm of 20 people employ no women? That's not technically an issue. Does one moderate engineering firm of 2000 people employ only 20 women? That's kind of a problem, but still, that's just two companies and a fraction of the industry.
When only 20% of engineering graduates are women, and only 11% of engineering posts are held by women, and 25% of female engineers leave engineering entirely by 30 (for whatever reason, including family) then... there's something :systemic: occurring.

This post is internally contradictory, and not worth my time in any case as it strays too far from the UK topic. If you post it in the feminist thread maybe I can be bothered to find you the hundreds of examples where this kind o f gynocentric nonsense has been debunked, and a dozen or so books.

To the other one:
And 700 or so MPs is a valid argument?
Why?
Because they make policies.
But that's not the case when you actually look into how government work and the relevant departments to gender policies, there, we see women are overrepresented. The source is a freedom of information request, via wikipedia.

[Ifreann]

Looks like it's happened again guys...

A man who is critically ill after being exposed to an unknown substance in Wiltshire is a Russian national convicted of spying for Britain, the BBC understands.

Ah yes, the old unknown substance trick. Classic Cold War spycraft.

---

Surprised so little talk here about May's housing plan .. which is pretty radical for the Tories.

One might even call it "red".

[Vassenor]

Looks like it's happened again guys...

A man who is critically ill after being exposed to an unknown substance in Wiltshire is a Russian national convicted of spying for Britain, the BBC understands.

Ah yes, the old unknown substance trick. Classic Cold War spycraft.

---

Surprised so little talk here about May's housing plan .. which is pretty radical for the Tories.

One might even call it "red".

Are we honestly surprised that an utter rag like the Daily Mail has no concept of editorial balance?

[Bakery Hill]

Looks like it's happened again guys...

A man who is critically ill after being exposed to an unknown substance in Wiltshire is a Russian national convicted of spying for Britain, the BBC understands.

Ah yes, the old unknown substance trick. Classic Cold War spycraft.

---

Surprised so little talk here about May's housing plan .. which is pretty radical for the Tories.

One might even call it "red".

Funny thing about Ed, he makes a far better commentator than he does a statesman.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Looks like it's happened again guys...

A man who is critically ill after being exposed to an unknown substance in Wiltshire is a Russian national convicted of spying for Britain, the BBC understands.

Ah yes, the old unknown substance trick. Classic Cold War spycraft.

---

Surprised so little talk here about May's housing plan .. which is pretty radical for the Tories.

One might even call it "red".

Ed Miliband, sarky elder statesman

[Ifreann]

Ah yes, the old unknown substance trick. Classic Cold War spycraft.

---

One might even call it "red".

Funny thing about Ed, he makes a far better commentator than he does a statesman.

Just wait till he unveils the giant stone carving of his Twitter feed.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Funny thing about Ed, he makes a far better commentator than he does a statesman.

Just wait till he unveils the giant stone carving of his Twitter feed.

Iran and Turkey hold the trademark on Twitter-based stonings.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Ah yes, the old unknown substance trick. Classic Cold War spycraft.

---

One might even call it "red".

Ed Miliband, sarky elder statesman

Should be knighted for services to satire.

[Salandriagado]

"It is morally wrong to force me to do X" and "X is morally wrong" are different sentences. I don't know how much more simply I can put this.

This just sounds like you're splitting hairs at this point. Surely if both are morally wrong, both should be banned, correct?

No? I haven't drawn any link whatsoever between being morally wrong and being banned. I really genuinely think you just aren't reading my posts at all. To say it again: you should not be able to force people to do things that THEY think are morally wrong. Person A should not be able to force Person B to do a thing that Person B thinks is wrong. I really don't know how many times I need to say this before you stop responding to things I haven't said.

[Eastfield Lodge]

This just sounds like you're splitting hairs at this point. Surely if both are morally wrong, both should be banned, correct?

No? I haven't drawn any link whatsoever between being morally wrong and being banned. I really genuinely think you just aren't reading my posts at all. To say it again: you should not be able to force people to do things that THEY think are morally wrong. Person A should not be able to force Person B to do a thing that Person B thinks is wrong. I really don't know how many times I need to say this before you stop responding to things I haven't said.

And I asked what if the child thought that going home was morally wrong...

[Trumptonium]

Well that's a shame.

Hoped for a deal.

Unless she's ruling it out to get an upper hand later.

Nah, passporting had been ruled out within weeks of the referendum, both because of the 'no Single Market' red lines and because the French (in particular) were apparently keen to pick up business from London.

Well that backfired. Paris still losing jobs.

Frankfurt might gain. A bit seems to be going to Amsterdam, but most of all it's Warsaw and Milan that are picking up literally all banking jobs being created. Budapest gets the support ones.

I don't really think it was a given. Passporting need not necessarily to be ruled out because of the single market departure, it's a political choice. Nevertheless Swiss banks still operate out of Switzerland and do business in the EU without shifting functions to London et al.

Loss of jobs is inevitable, but will probably be a loss of potential jobs rather than real jobs people have today. There will likely be a large loss of tax revenue as some execs relocate and compliance is shed, but that's about it.

Wells Fargo is of course trying to break into Europe with its investment banking division ... and despite Brexit it has decided to place their operations in London. Why they would do so is baffling if indeed those worst-scenario warnings were real.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is an exceedingly facile view of "equality", the same kind that thinks a flat tax rate is a good idea because "everyone pays the same proportion of tax" or "but everyone can apply for a specified form of photo ID so voter ID laws can't be oppressive and maliciously constructed!".

This is one department of 107 people in a government that easily employs and contracts close to 4 million people (when you factor in NHS, schools etc) [note - [url=https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/bulletins/publicsectoremployment/september2017]it is apparently 5.5 million, with 3 million employed directly by central government[/ur] - ]
If this disparity were common among dozens of the hundreds of government departments, it would matter. You can barely get a percentage population in this office.

You don't appear to have linked a source. Dominic Raab, being hostile to "muh feminism" has every reason to try and bias data in his favour. Is the equalities department senior staff made up mostly of women? Are they paid more than lower ranks of staff within the department? Well see if you average all their pay then on average women are paid more! checkmate, feminazis!

Does an engineering firm of 20 people employ no women? That's not technically an issue. Does one moderate engineering firm of 2000 people employ only 20 women? That's kind of a problem, but still, that's just two companies and a fraction of the industry.
When only 20% of engineering graduates are women, and only 11% of engineering posts are held by women, and 25% of female engineers leave engineering entirely by 30 (for whatever reason, including family) then... there's something :systemic: occurring.

This post is internally contradictory, and not worth my time in any case as it strays too far from the UK topic. If you post it in the feminist thread maybe I can be bothered to find you the hundreds of examples where this kind o f gynocentric nonsense has been debunked, and a dozen or so books.

To the other one:
And 700 or so MPs is a valid argument?
Why?
Because they make policies.
But that's not the case when you actually look into how government work and the relevant departments to gender policies, there, we see women are overrepresented. The source is a freedom of information request, via wikipedia.

It's only internally contradictory if you choose to discard my point about the interpretation of what it means to be "equal".

If you are the person who continually makes unprompted, non-sequitur posts of "political feminism running UK government and/or ruining Britain" in the UK Politics Thread, I fail to see how my responses to it can really be "too far from the UK politics topic".
We are talking about politics in the UK. However you want to cut it, feminism is political (as is basically any other possible stance) and you are directly arguing a point over how a member of our government used a government institution (FOIA) to ascertain statistics about another government department to make a political point about their supposed ideology and actions, and claim that it is representative of the infiltration feminism has made into government.

We couldn't be talking more about UK politics if we tried. The cynical part of me I was doing so well of me to repress suggests the main reason you'd rather have this out in the Feminism thread is a confluence of one or more of the following - I've previously said I explicitly do not want to partake in that thread because of what I perceive to be its toxic nature; that thread is frequented by people hostile to my viewpoint and supportive of yours; that same level of support for you is not present here, while I am not supported, posters here are typically more receptive of my stance than yours.

[Ostroeuropa]

This post is internally contradictory, and not worth my time in any case as it strays too far from the UK topic. If you post it in the feminist thread maybe I can be bothered to find you the hundreds of examples where this kind o f gynocentric nonsense has been debunked, and a dozen or so books.

To the other one:
And 700 or so MPs is a valid argument?
Why?
Because they make policies.
But that's not the case when you actually look into how government work and the relevant departments to gender policies, there, we see women are overrepresented. The source is a freedom of information request, via wikipedia.

It's only internally contradictory if you choose to discard my point about the interpretation of what it means to be "equal".

If you are the person who continually makes unprompted, non-sequitur posts of "political feminism running UK government and/or ruining Britain" in the UK Politics Thread, I fail to see how my responses to it can really be "too far from the UK politics topic".
We are talking about politics in the UK. However you want to cut it, feminism is political (as is basically any other possible stance) and you are directly arguing a point over how a member of our government used a government institution (FOIA) to ascertain statistics about another government department to make a political point about their supposed ideology and actions, and claim that it is representative of the infiltration feminism has made into government.

We couldn't be talking more about UK politics if we tried. The cynical part of me I was doing so well of me to repress suggests the main reason you'd rather have this out in the Feminism thread is a confluence of one or more of the following - I've previously said I explicitly do not want to partake in that thread because of what I perceive to be its toxic nature; that thread is frequented by people hostile to my viewpoint and supportive of yours; that same level of support for you is not present here, while I am not supported, posters here are typically more receptive of my stance than yours.

Fine, i'll address your other post if you address this one properly.

[Philjia]

Surprised so little talk here about May's housing plan .. which is pretty radical for the Tories.

One might even call it "red".

Ed is destined to see every policy he ever proposed be co-opted by the Tories.