Dunno about that. He could burn an effigy of Nicola Sturgeon and there would be basically zero consequence.
Not that I agree with him of course.
1 Like
It would be if they actually had any plans to do anything about it.
How accurate is this statement? Usual opposition politics or not?
But the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Douglas Ross, tweeted: “Devolution has not been a disaster. The SNP’s non-stop obsession with another referendum - above jobs, schools and everything else - has been a disaster.”
Nothing will happen until 2022 at the earliest.
Personally I think it could be 2024 a decade after the last one.
Usual opposition politics.
The SNP these days are acting like a party that wants anything but independence, via referendum or otherwise (they know they’ll win and then no reason to vote SNP in an independent Scotland - careerists out of jobs)
@Calum only because of the lack of balls/imagination of the current leadership of the party.
But meanwhile we are supposed to sacrifice our old to a pandemic we could better control, sacrifice the lives of our people out the EU when that’s not what we want?
1 Like
We need a minister for Ben Bradley! This guy is such an idiot. If he is discriminated against it won’t be because he has a knob, it’ll be because he is one!
4 Likes
No money to feed kids nutritious meals, but more than enough to give soldiers laserguns.
Make it make sense.
3 Likes
I’m sure Sir Keir would have done the same.
But why shouldn’t there be a minister for men? Men commit suicide at 3x the rate of women, men also have health issues unique to men that gets less funding and research. Why shot the messenger instead of listening to the message? It’s not anti female to want something done specifically for men that mode of thinking is redundant and flawed in many ways
3 Likes
Then you’re also missing the point, along with dear old Ben.
Although it’s gradually getting better, women have been outnumbered and under represented in politics considerably since the start of time. We have had to campaign and risk our lives just be be able to bloody vote! Did men have such trouble? Of course not.
Men’s issues are obviously important. But men have had (and still do) more of a voice than women have ever had. The actual full title of the job is minister for women and equalities, it’s supposed to address all forms of discrimination, with particular emphasis on gender inequality. It focuses on women because we’re the ones under represented in parliament. It’s an attempt to create a more balanced and equal society, not a man hating brigade.
And if you can’t see that then you’re part of the problem.
But if it makes you feel better, it’s not even a full time role, Liz Truss has about 3 different titles, so women will continue to be under represented for a while yet 
1 Like
This myth about men have larger voices than women yet there is still no minister for men. Can you name one cancer research company/charity that deal with testicular cancer that affect men as much as breast cancer affects women? Men commit more suicide, boys are under performing in schools than they female counter parts, male domestic violence victims, the homelessness rate for men, the death rate, women on average 5 years more than men but on average the last 10/11 years of men are very poor health wise compared to women. One doesn’t cancel out the other both can exist at the same time. Wanting something for men is not an attack in women like I said that mode of thinking is redundant. Men have they issues and so do women we need specialist to look at both
1 Like
We don’t need a minister for men to sort out issues with suicide rates and health conditions unique to men, we need a government thats willing to properly address the issues by ensuring there is adequate funding for mental health initiatives and services, as well as more generally making sure we have an adequately funded NHS. It might also help with mental health issues if there weren’t so many people who were desperately poor, living in inadequate housing and working in unstable jobs with poor employment rights. Improving those situations might help address public health concerns surrounding suicide and mental health too.
His party have been in power for over a decade now and have had the power to make significant changes and yet they don’t. Instead of taking serious, sincere steps to solve these issues this disingenuous twat will instead bleat on about having a minister for men for show, because it plays up to his base who like to think that this is what the fight for equality looks like. Funny how these are probably the same cunts who would call people snowflakes for being too emotional and complain about the decline of masculinity because Harry Styles wore a dress, but then act like men’s mental health is the biggest issue today when it gives them a chance to stick it to the feminists and lefties.
Anyone who can’t see how insincere this cunt Bradley is either doesn’t want to or is too stupid too.
3 Likes
I don’t care what him and his ilk think about a man in a dress or feminist. I’m concerned about how men’s issue has now become a partisan issue. We have issues that need to look at and dealt with I don’t get why people just brush it aside say things like men have always had power when the reality is people with wealth always had power. There needs to be outreach designed for men targeted at men to get men on board. What’s wrong with that?
1 Like
The issue is, as @JakeyBoy they could put funding into issues that affect men in difficult situations such as mental health and homelessness but they choose not to. Homelessness has increased under there government.
Yeah you’re still missing the point.
The things you listed are far more important than a barely part time role.
This is what the minister for women and equalities is responsible for:
- developing an equalities policy that it is based on individual autonomy and dignity
- promoting equality of opportunity for everyone
That’s it. She isn’t helping homeless women or female charities or placing women’s health above men’s etc.
What you want is not the equivalent of what women currently have. The things you have an issue with are things the government as a whole should be investing in.
2 Likes
It’s also true that working class men only got the vote just over fifty years before that.
Also, how exactly did women risk their lives to get the vote?
Probably not as many as the millions of men who were forced to fight for their country and who never came back.
As for women not having as many representatives in politics, it’s because far fewer women go into politics.
It’s the same as women complaining they don’t have jobs on the boards pf top companies, they are just not as many willing to do what it takes to get there.
I don’t notice many women complaining they are under represented in the army, working on oil rigs, construction sites, farm labouring or any kind of heavy manual work etc.
I don’t care if there is a minister for men but by definition it is sexist to have a minister for women.
1 Like
Excuse me?
I’m not even overly feminist. I just want the best person for the job to get the job. But this is actual horseshit! I know women who have applied for top jobs and constantly been turned down. Hell I even worked for one, she was the boss in all but named, worked incredibly hard. Applied for the editor in chief job on multiple occasions only to be overlooked for a man each time. On one occasion the particular man was as useful as a chocolate teapot with no actual experience of working on a magazine floor.
So don’t tell me that women don’t work as hard as men! Women also have other obstacles to overcome such as returning to work after having children. Oh let me guess, “well they shouldn’t have them then”.
2 Likes
That crap happens the other way around where men are told no because company wants x% of women which happened to me personally. Like I said wanting something for men doesn’t diminish or degrades what’s out there for women both genders have they issues that’s needs to be seen to. I don’t understand the animosity towards something for men the other way round people would be screaming misogyny
3 Likes
Just because a woman doesn’t get a job and a man does, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s because she is a woman.
it could be that, whoever else got the job, was better qualified.
It also depends on how many people went for the job.
If it was a few hundred then that means there are a significant amount of men that didn’t get it either.
There are always going to be random examples of people not getting jobs that deserve them but what about the women who do get top jobs and who don’t employ women to work for them?
I don’t remember saying that but I did notice you didn’t answer about women risking their lives to get the vote and that working class men only got the vote a few years earlier.
2 Likes
I didn’t say it did. I pointed out what the minister for women and equalities does. Did you read it? The equivalent for men would not be a minister dealing with homelessness and all the other issues you mentioned.
I never said otherwise. I was arguing @InvincibleDB10 ‘s complete sexist generalisation that women don’t want a big job as much as men do.
I think at the end of the day, we are probably on the same page as what we want. I completely agree that more needs to be done for men, but it’s not the job of a few hours a week role (which is purely about addressing the balance in parliament) to solve that. And I also want men and women to be treated equally when applying for a job.