Associate
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 357
- Location
- UK
Harriet Harman.
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I suspect it is simpler than dealing with the barrage of "but they don't pay income tax" as would surely result if the system was setup to pre-deduct it. It's also probably a simpler system all round to do it this way although logically you could do it with income tax removed and then square it away - on a similar note it is also easier to directly compare civil service salaries to those in the private sector if we all receive the same basic income(s) and pay the same basic taxes. The fact that I, in some small measure, pay for myself to go to work is something that is not lost on me.
A vast majority of public sector employment is illogical and inefficient, it doesn't generate economic wealth, just economic drag from inefficient use of money and losses in the process of collection and payment.
Unfortunately, this is lost on both Labour and a large number of the population who seem to believe that government provided employment, services etc are a good thing or are 'free'...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yes, let's reduce news presenters to the same level as porn ? Latest murder not interesting you ? Well at least you can get a thrill by looking at the pretty newsreader.
Sorry, but when an essential component for the selection of news readers (or reporters) is that they are pretty it says something rather sick about the media and perhaps society in general.
THe problem is they aren't journalists, no reporter doing the news is really that, they read lines off a teleprompt. They aren't highly skilled, their entire talent starts and finishes with "has a clear voice which people like listening too".
They are presenters, nothing more or less, they aren't important jobs, they are all vastly overpaid, for reading from a script and the jobs become even more devalued as interviews went from on the edge and interesting 10 years ago, to morning tv gossip and interviewing the wrong people who happen to walk into a studio that morning. News became entertainment, years and years ago, its not remotely important.
Their job is to be appealing and keep people watching, thats it, this is all ignoring the fact that theres no proof she was moved on due to age.
But Harriet is a disgustingly obtuse woman who should not be in any position of power, constantly bends the rules, gets away with crap, doesn't do anything useful in her role and well, should be fired for all the ridiculous nonsense she comes out with. AS others have said, he stupid proclaimations on subjects like these do more to harm the "feminist" cause than help it, she should shut the help up.
Whats even more hilarious is that someone so completely disliked by basically everyone in the country is chosen to be so senior to a PM that most people dislike, for being an idiot and running the country badly. Surely with so many people dissappointed by Brown he'd be looking to get in someone likable, qualified and competant in her job, rather than someone who brings the labour party even further down.
Lets not forget she was sacked after being the head of the welfare department, during a period that saw welfare sky rocket, where she also went ahead with awful legislation biased towards women(yes, I wiki'd her
). She introduced the fuel benefits for elderly but men were forced to wait 5 years longer to claim it.SHe's just a complete moron whose done nothing well in her time in politics yet has found her way to the position of second in command. I'm not sure whats worse either she's actually the second best person in the party, or that a party with far more qualified people would allow her to become deputy leader.
I'm fairly sure that at this point in time Labours single hope of staying in power is to fire HH and appoint Cheryl Cole as the deputy leader. Thats what 10-15million X-factor votes right there going to Labour, well, if they make it possible to vote over the phone that is.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yes, let's reduce news presenters to the same level as porn ? Latest murder not interesting you ? Well at least you can get a thrill by looking at the pretty newsreader.
Sorry, but when an essential component for the selection of news readers (or reporters) is that they are pretty it says something rather sick about the media and perhaps society in general.
hmm, edited by it double posted, weird.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
The thing that really annoys me about her is she honestly believes she might be MP one day. The truth is despite being the most successful female politician of her generation she an extremely average minister who's got slightly further up the greasy poll only because she fills a certain demographic requirement
I also dislike the fact we now have a “Minister for Women and Equality”. I don’t see the need for this particular position to focus on women more than any other section of society. It appears to only give a platform for women to complain endlessly about how their careers have been adversely affected by everyone but themselves and the decisions they’ve made.
I also dislike the fact we now have a “Minister for Women and Equality”. I don’t see the need for this particular position to focus on women more than any other section of society. It appears to only give a platform for women to complain endlessly about how their careers have been adversely affected by everyone but themselves and the decisions they’ve made.
She's a feminist. Worse still she's a socialist feminist. Worse than that she's a militant socialist feminist, which is worse than being a Taliban groupie
She's not even technically a feminist. She doesn't want equal rights between men and women she wants women to dominate and exceed men.
She is far from being inoffensive and bland. This particular story might be (and, as a rarity, I think she has a valid point about it), but in general she isn't. Given a choice between her and Nick Griffin, I'm not sure who I'd deport. I think Nick Griffin is worse, but she has far more power.
The worrying thing is that she might be party leader by the time Labour next come round to being in a position to win an election.
If they just paid them less and exempted them from income tax, rather than paying them more and then taking the income tax back, I can see two things happening:
i) They complain that they're being paid less than a comparable job, conveniently overlooking the tax issue.
ii) The media have a field day with stories about them riding the tax-free gravy train.
In politics, "equality" generally means advocating special treatment for whatever group the person speaking considers to be superior to, or at least far more important than, everyone else. Feminism is just the most successful strain of that.
Vote for them to be put through a running man-esque game? Absolutely
Absolutely not!
The biggest name in running man came back stronger, remember.
Which is why it's called 'feminism' - it has to be about women first or only, because that's what it's for, in name, in theory and in practice. It's innately anti-equality, but has usurped and corrupted the idea of equality. A smart move - it undermines the best opponent to feminism (sexual equality), it serves as a cloak to get support from people who've been conned into thinking feminism is about sexual equality and it serves as a weapon against anyone who disagrees.
Exactly, her entire 'political career' appears to have been based around making her life easier. Then again she's most likely just more obvious and see-through than the rest of our career poliicians, of which our resident government (and I use the word in its vaguest possible sense) are the most self serving, self important, irresponsible and downright dangerous group of misinformed idiots imaginable.
Grrrrrr
