Ladymuck

I never knew that. Thank you for those snippets!

Hmmmm...not exactly inspirational data. Interesting though ????. Didn't see a single postman or ship-steward though - Mitchk;-), though the Labour Party did have 10 remaining miners at the 2005 General Election. We've got a long way to go.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, a Labour MP now is most likely to be > teacher or Lecturer. Their representation is > pretty narrow white collar, middle class public > sector or legal/journalist. Well, if that's the case, then that situation has to be equally as wrong as that of the Tories/Lib-dems. It's not so much about the profession (or where they are educated) but more about the fact that party members are not representative of their constituents. As ???? put it - too "narrow". This cannot be good for the country.

Someone's on a wind-up...:)) Anyway, who are these ex-postmen and ship stewards of which you speak?

Coincidentally, we were joined in our musings on a representative Parliament last night on the BBC's Question Time. It is the last question to be asked: i.e. "Is it new politics when the majority of the cabinet are white, middle-class men educated at public school and Oxbridge?". It could have been us in that studio! Click here and then scroll forward to 52 mins. (lasts about 4 mins).

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't say I like the idea of nationally being in > colaition with the tories. Echoed. But we may as well get used to it. Anyhow, I am in favour of the raising of the capital gains tax rate to streamline it with income tax as well as increasing the income tax threshold to ?10,000. I am hoping both these measures will assist in reducing the huge income equality gap between the richest/poorest. Not nearly enough - but it's a start.

Couldn't Have Said It Better (Meatloaf):)-D It is about equality, diversity, and being representative of our country.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But then he also had a song called 'Bat out of > Hell". What'd you do with that mirror, LM? :)) If It Ain`t Broke, Break It? (Meatloaf)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is that because women are crap at being in the > majority? > > *runs away at a quite astonishing speed* Exactly the response I expected from a white, middle-class, Oxbridge-educated lawyer/hedge-fund-manager - not forgetting, balding, overweight and middle-aged man! So when are you standing? *Loz looks in the mirror and sadly agrees with LM's description*

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure about the idea of forcing the > electorate to elect certain genetic types? And this is exactly what is happening at present...the electorate are being forced (in the main) to elect white middle-class (often bald and overweight) men!;-)

MitchK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We need more thickos in Parliament. There are too > many intelligent Oxbridge lawyers in there who can > string sentences together and understand complex > issues such as the economy. *bursts out laughing* Anyone in mind?

Me too...but I was too wimpish to say (until now).

Your friend's letter is most heartfelt Keef. All my life I have been a staunch Labour supporter, but in the last couple of elections I just could not bring myself to vote for them - so I voted Green. What I am trying to say is that I can totally relate to your friend - totally. It's such a shame when this type of loss of faith hits.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Harman's equality bill called more for all-women > shortlists. Stuffing Parliament with more > middle-class, Oxbridge-educated lawyers - male or > female - will hardly improve things. Actually, the ?all-women shortlists? provisions were first introduced in 2002 by the The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act to exempt the selection of candidates in Parliament from the provisions in the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act by legally permitting political parties to select candidates based on gender in a bid to increase the number of women within our political system. This ?positive action? provision was due to expire in 2015 (unless specifically extended) and HH's Act merely extends the timescale within which "all-women shortlists" may be utilised until 2030 . Whilst there has been a rise in the number of women in Parliament, this increase is no where near as representative as it should be (currently just under 20%). This is because there is a bias towards electing males. So, if HH's extension results in greater gender diversity within Parliament, then this, in my view, has to be a good thing. Oh and...ahem...I do not recall reading anything about ?Stuffing Parliament with more middle-class, Oxbridge-educated lawyers? in the Act...clearly I need to go back and re-read.;-)

MitchK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >My earlier lottery comment (you did your home work!) was >ironic, or supposed to be... >people should realise that the way to improve your own >status...is education and hard work. >In terms of equality, what do you feel about the disparity >between countries? You would like to see more equality >in this country but what about globally - should we >transfer more of our wealth to e.g. African countries so >that they are not so poor, relative to us? With the greatest of respect, I think it is a little simplistic to assume that the way to self improvement is necessarily through education and hard work, especially given the underlying inequalities which afflict both our education and employment sectors. Of course the idea of a global economic utopia where an international socio-politico sytem ensured a perfect world free of poverty, inequality, injustice, etc. would be the ideal. Imagine it, everyone happily going about their business in a vast Eden. It's a fantastic notion. However, given the financial quagmire our own (relatively) tiny country is in, the never-ending list of social ills which plague us daily and the fact that our political parties struggle to even reach a (relatively) simple consensus for a coalition government, I think such a vision is going to have to remain a pipedream for some time. However, I do believe that, until such a vision becomes reality (unlikely) that we should in the meantime give as much ?foreign aid? as we can realistically afford to those struggling/developing countries that need it. Incidentally, I found your earlier comment (24th March) on the Lottery highly amusing ? which is why I had such a vivid recollection of it. Mine was intended to be equally amusing ? albeit flippant!

Firstly, thanks for providing this Mr. Barber. Personally, I would have preferred a red/yellow coalition. However, we don't always get what we want but, now that the blues/yellows are in power I hope it works in the national interests of all our citizens. I can't help being cynical though - the Tories' record with respect to the poor doesn't inspire me. That said, I am pleased to note that the blue/yellow coalition will be raising the capital gains tax rate to streamline it with income tax as well as increasing the income tax threshold to ?10,000. Hopefully, both these measures should go some way to reducing the huge income equality gap between the richest/poorest. Though much more needs to be done. Still, it's a promising start.

MitchK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So can I take it you are not happy that the Tories > are back in power? Do bears crap in the woods?;-)

Just quickly popping in to briefly respond to a couple of outstanding questions from MitchK ? questions which I had (previously) decided to ignore for reasons which should become apparent. What do you think about the woman in the article? I do not possess sufficient information on Barbara Harriott to make a sound character judgement. I can only assume though that this "dispossessed mother" must have been pretty desperate to permit the Evening Standard to use her and her family for their own (questionable) purposes in this way. I hope they paid her handsomely. What do you think about the article in the Standard? Other than I believe it to be right-wing Tory-Press fodder to be foisted on whoever can be bothered to read it? Well, I'll begin with the beautifully composed photograph. The subject (the family group) is well spaced out, in focus, with little clutter to detract from it. There Ms Harriott, a single mother with not 2, 3, 5, or even 8 children ? but 11 - sits, no husband by her side. Oh, and look ? are my eyes deceiving me, or is she black? Ah wait ? there is more...yes, we are told that her children are from 5 different men. Shocking! (That the Evening Standard considered such minutia to be important, that is). Typical right-wing media manipulation in my opinion.

Sod Scotland...I'd be very surprised if a Tory Government were popular over here.

MitchK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you really do the lottery or are you joking? > Incredible if so. What is the point? I fail to see the relevance of this curious line of questioning/comment. And what is so "incredible" about playing the Lottery? Gambling and holding moral beliefs around a fairer society are hardly mutually exclusive - as far as I am aware. What is the point of playing the Lottery? To become rich overnight and never having to do a day's work in my life ever again of course. LOL! A bit like you really (with the exception that I don't "hate the rich"): Posted by: MitchK March 24, 01:49PM I hate the rich, although I do the lottery every week so one day I can be just like them. Now, what did you mean when you stated: "It just comes down to the haves and the have-nots at the end of the day"?

MitchK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >It just > comes down to the haves and the have-nots at the > end of the day. I am intrigued. What do you mean by this?

MitchK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you so worried about equality, Lady Muck? > What is wrong with wealth? Would be interested to > know if you work in the public or private sector. > Do you own property or not? I am not worried about equality - I wish there were more of it. There is nothing wrong with wealth per se. Indeed, I do the Lottery every week (just like you) in the hope that one day I may become rich myself. I have worked in both the public and private sectors from the snootiest/largest City Solicitors' firms to the more humble pro-bono legal organisations (and much in between). I live in a house jointly owned with hubby (though whether or not "we" own it is a matter for debate). I trust this answers all of your questions. Yes, I am being flippant. But seriously, as alluded to above, I have nothing against wealth. It is the unequal distribution of it, and the associated problems which this leads to, which I find unfair.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @#$%& knows mate. *laughs* Isn't "fuck" the guy who walks around with a condom on his nose? I'll have to ask him next time I see him.

Well Loz, it looks as though Labour might have "blown" it in their talks with the Lib-dems...talks are now being resumed with the Tories. Now I'm really worried.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah but, by your own admission, Labour haven?t > exactly delivered a ?fairer? society over the last > 15 years. Why would they suddenly decide to do so > now? You are right, they haven't. However, it hasn't been through lack of trying (e.g. introduction of NMW etc.), as opposed to their predecessors who appeared unconcerned about the issue. Just to be clear, I am not a supporter of any of the 3 main political parties. However, if I have to make a decision, then I do view Labour as the preferred choice when it comes to addressing issues surrounding a fairer Britain. It is, after all, they (and not the Tories) who have traditionally promoted fairness and equality - the early anti-discrimination laws on race and gender for example are evidence of this. Indeed, I do not recall the Conservatives doing anything to ease the situation. Labour have, to their credit, for some time now at least been acknowledging the scale of the problem and how, in the end, it affects us all. As far as I am aware, the Tories (and the Lib-dems) only relatively recently began jumping onto the "fairer society" band-wagon once the election appeared into view. Moreover, by promulgating the massive Equality Act 2010, they have at least demonstrated the political will to tackle the unfairness. The Tories, on the other hand, voted against the Bill when it went through to its second reading and there are therefore concerns that they might repeal it should they ever (God forbid) come to power.