Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Women are suffering more than men, proportionately, from the cuts, and there is his habit of patronising women in parliament, even if it is cross-party (his rudeness, at least, is democratic). He said "calm down dear" to Labour MP Angela Eagle during a debate; it was Prospect who compared him to a private gynaecologist and he is in that incarnation, all bulging blue eyes and false concern. Last week he called his own MP Nadine Dorries "frustrated" during prime minister's questions. He then giggled and apologised ? government by U-turn and giggle.

He not doing women any favours with attitude.



http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jan2011/8/4/image-1-for-paper-pics-18-jan-2011-gallery-553268354.jpg

Women are suffering more than men, proportionately, from the cuts


UUUURRGH! More of this Fawcett Society crap. Women are 'suffering' proportionally more than men because women *benefit* proportionally more than men from government spending. More women than men are employed by the PS. Plus also the FS mistakenly included child benefit payments as female income.


I didn't hear any complaints during the good years that men were benefiting less from Budget announcements.


As someone once quipped, if there was a major catastrophe the Guardian headline would read, "WORLD COMING TO END - WOMEN DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED.

It not just the cuts Lol it is the way he perceives women that old Tory hooray henry type the little women at home thing going on. I think the reason why women voters are put off him is women in tend bare a grudge when you piss them off not to mention his patronising comments recently.
As for the other stuff, I think he is realising it is a problem. The PR people are onto it (though the list of stuff released yesterday to attract the female vote was rather laughable). He'll change his spots quickly enough now he realises it could cost him votes.

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Last week he called his own MP

> Nadine Dorries "frustrated" during prime

> minister's questions. He then giggled and

> apologised ? government by U-turn and giggle.


Ah yes, this is the one where the slow news day at the Guardian took this completely out of context. Did anyone see Nadine Dorries on Newnight after this?


And I say this as someone who isn't a fan of Cameron either.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> a Guardian-reading pedant writes:

>

> if you google Nadine Dorries frustrated you get

>

> this - heavy on the Mail, less so on the Guardian


I wasn't using this as an opportunity to take a pop at the paper, it happened to be the only one that I'd read and was able to comment upon. As I said, Newsnmight will put you straight on the Nadine Dorries story. No need to be so defensive Guardianistas.


Nuclear war every 28 days!!!!!!!!!!


PS politicians changing their spots when they realise it could cost them votes?! Pass the smellng salts please :)

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...