A contender for the Labour leadership contest wishes he had assassinated Margaret Thatcher in the 80s and is applauded loudly. A twenty-six year-old accountant in South Yorkshire tweets about blowing his local airport sky high due to bad weather and is convicted.
The accountant should have been investigated to see if he really was a threat and if not, then ignore him. As for regrets or plans that involve time machines, those ought to be ignored as well. I don't see why either should be convicted.. they are both equally within the norms of English hyperbole.
they make up just under a third (81 out of 258) of all Labour MPs. Since she's talking about cabinet, what is the proportion of women in the Labour shadow cabinet?
Labour men are great - but they are not twice as good as the women I read her comment not as a serious mathematical analysis but as a subtle jab at UK democracy - with an allusion to less democratic countries where women are considered to have half the worth of men. But even if she did mean it as you read it I don't follow your 1/3rd women MPs should equal 1/3 cabinet posts right? logic.
There's nothing that says cabinet should be proportional to the demographics of the MPs and she doesn't suggest that either. If we assume she believes that the best people out of the MPs should be in cabinet, then her statement is still consistent. She believes that there are currently enough women MPs good enough to make up half of the best of the elected MPs (cabinet). But presumably she believes the fact that they still won't end up in cabinet is because of lingering bias in favour of men and to correct for such a bias you would need a (presumably temporary but indefinite) rule to enforce fairness.
Besides if she's so keen on gender parity, why didn't she and others join the leadership challenge? I don't see what one has to do with the other. Presumably there can be only one leader.. so whoever wins there won't be gender parity (unless like the New Zealand Greens UK Labour adopts a co-leadership policy). She's clearly more interested in the demographics of the cabinet.
no subject
The accountant should have been investigated to see if he really was a threat and if not, then ignore him. As for regrets or plans that involve time machines, those ought to be ignored as well. I don't see why either should be convicted.. they are both equally within the norms of English hyperbole.
they make up just under a third (81 out of 258) of all Labour MPs.
Since she's talking about cabinet, what is the proportion of women in the Labour shadow cabinet?
Labour men are great - but they are not twice as good as the women
I read her comment not as a serious mathematical analysis but as a subtle jab at UK democracy - with an allusion to less democratic countries where women are considered to have half the worth of men. But even if she did mean it as you read it I don't follow your 1/3rd women MPs should equal 1/3 cabinet posts right? logic.
There's nothing that says cabinet should be proportional to the demographics of the MPs and she doesn't suggest that either. If we assume she believes that the best people out of the MPs should be in cabinet, then her statement is still consistent. She believes that there are currently enough women MPs good enough to make up half of the best of the elected MPs (cabinet). But presumably she believes the fact that they still won't end up in cabinet is because of lingering bias in favour of men and to correct for such a bias you would need a (presumably temporary but indefinite) rule to enforce fairness.
Besides if she's so keen on gender parity, why didn't she and others join the leadership challenge?
I don't see what one has to do with the other. Presumably there can be only one leader.. so whoever wins there won't be gender parity (unless like the New Zealand Greens UK Labour adopts a co-leadership policy). She's clearly more interested in the demographics of the cabinet.