...that’s so not true though, bots...I mean, it just isn’t...’lies and betrayal’, post Brexit was very much levelled at him and screamed at him by the swing voter/the undecided and in the middle, type voter who had voted Leave because of his lies...because he lied about the funding for their NHS....he let those voters down completely and attached himself to things like NHS and how Brexit would mean such a difference...and his response to his lies...?...well, politicians lie, that’s what they do, not sure why you're all pickin’ on me/Parliament would be empty if you removed all of the liars...I mean, really..?...He used the NHS as a leverage in his lies...that’s not voicing ‘mainstream’ it’s voicing self fulfilment, whatever the divide and impact on a nation he apparently loves....he loves nothing so much as he loves Nigel...

I agree he is very close to being so.

I find totally distasteful his ugly language of other human beings.
Plus his twisting of issues to present as truth, his distorted prejudices and more extreme divisive rhetoric.

I give him credit on one thing only, he has never wavered on the EU or his views on it.
He was correct along with others that it needed massive reform.
It did and it does.
However that's where I stop as to anything he's stood for.

I didn't agree we should leave the EU, I believe you sort problems out from within not running away.

His awful divisive, intolerance, smug coldness and extreme prejudices at times which shows itself.
I think do take him to a nearer fascist element..

I'd fear greatly a man with his erratic prejudices ever having power.

It plays to an audience he has.
Those who like twisting others statements and who maybe hold some of the same prejudices he has.

I cannot bear Farage, I think he's been the most divisively dangerous politician in the last decade or more.

Thankfully he's never won power himself or for any party he's led either.
The saddest thing for me is, that in part, his divisiveness has been taken up by the present Con party.
Who are now intolerant of those of their own ranks who dare speak out against them publicly.

So overall on your post Kizzy, I agree with you.

Until something politically happens that creates a more consensus in politics, then unfortunately this kind of populist divisive attitude is just going to gain more momentum.
People like Farage, the instigators of that too.

Douglas Murray 2020 interview: Black Lives Matter, Rule Britannia, will Trump lose?
 

It may be but there was no substance to that opinion. When I gave my opinion I asked if there was any counter opinion that would change my mind.

I wasn't expecting much tbh but 'no he isn't' to me isn't much of an opinion as there's nothing to back it.

Thanks Joey, I agree with a need to reform however the issues were magnified to make other options appear more attractive. He is without doubt a great speaker, but he's a better rabble rouser, that's what playing to the fears of Britons did.
Has he carried on his campaign for specific funds for the NHS? No.. Has he offered up any joined up solution to the refugee crisis between the UK and EU? ...No.

Nothing he does has any positive outcome for anyone bar advancing what appears to me to be a far right alignment.

You didn't provide any substance to back up your opinion though :shrug: all you said is "yes he is."

What makes him fascist, in your opinion?

If you read my post you'll see I suggest he's taken right wing values but only those that repress or suppress.

For me that what has/ will promote fascism.

Your problem lies with the right wing agitators that are sabotaging protests to undermine them. If you allow yourself to believe that the protests are violent riots then you're being taken in by Right Wing sabotage to make you think that way.

Farage voices ***** views, if his views are truly mainstream then that just means the UK is full of *****.

Just watched this, his neoconservative lens is very narrow and to attempt to examine all these events through it is a joke.

Look at his take on equality, women have equality now so why are some still propping up barricades?

End of conversation... because in theory there may be equality but in practice? This has been the ongoing issue, he conveniently sidelines that.

In what ways, do you think?

Two morons that lack the empathy to discuss issues that don't directly affect them properly.

Google 'glass ceiling'.

Okay, I'm actually with you on that one - women being denied promotions and/or jobs because of their sex is probably almost as responsible for what is inaccurately labelled as the "pay gap" as women working different jobs and hours to men.

The problem is that legal equality and social equality are not really the same thing. In Britain we have legal equality - absolutely - but there are still major issues when it comes to social equality and how people are treated, and this leads to a lot of functional inequality even where it legally should not. There are anti-discrimination laws but deliberate discrimination can be very hard to prove when it's low-level and systemic rather than in-your-face. There are social issues that aren't at the employer level so can't be tackled via that route. e.g. there's a lot of research that shows that people (both men and women) are more agreeable with men and more easily swayed by men, where they will argue with and second-guess a female (even a professional) and take them less seriously no matter their ability level. The practical effect of that in a business context is that a male employee will appear, on paper, to be more productive, thus will be assumed to be more capable, thus will secure promotion more easily etc. etc.

The question is how do we solve it. You can't legislate against opinion and bias... you can't, fully, legally enforce against social discrimination.

So yeah... it's extremely over-simplistic to look at the legal situation and say "problem solved, everyone IS equal now". There are some huge hurdles in the way - hurdles that are sociologically inevitable because we're only a generation or two removed from legal white male dominance - that mean functional inequality in the UK is still VERY real.

Absolutely, even at my most tongue-in-cheek moments I've never denied there's a "hiring gap" and "promotions gap", and they're things which should be focused on rather than fighting against a "pay gap", which paints the picture of men and women being paid differently for the exact same job.

As for solving it? It might be something which has to "die out", sadly - as you say, it's virtually impossible to legislate these things away, but fair hiring practises and changing attitudes as times march on might just make it go away over time.

There may be instances where they are paid different for the same job, look at the BBC where female 'anchors' are paid considerably less than males.
Look at traditional new right sociological perspectives they still expect women to stay home and churn out babies, as we remain firmly conservative in our politics that won't be challenged.

The world of showbiz ain't the real world. Instances like that obviously aren't based on their sex, but how much airtime they have, and how many viewers their shows get.

Forgot to add, maybe this could be helped by equality in parental leave?

Only in instances where it isn't actually the "same" job, these are unique positions with negotiated contracts, not salaried positions. If you're talking about a salaried position where there is more than one person in the same position, the salary will be exactly the same. That's where it becomes a matter of social inequality rather than legal... because...

...this is correct, but the answer isn't just "so that's just how it be" - you have to at some point start asking the question... WHY are male anchors a bigger draw, WHY do they command larger salaries, WHY do they draw more viewers. The wider questions that have less to do with the people doing the hiring, and more to do with the mindset of the viewing public. Same as in a sales role. The male salesperson often performs better on paper and gets the promotion - but why? It's usually not down to ability or how much work they're putting in, but simply down to the fact that people in general (both male and female) find males more authorotative and take them more seriously in their sales pitch. But again the question is why, and how do we start to address that going forward, because in the interests of fairness we DO need to. And that's where it IS about the past, and why the past has to be acknowledged as still affecting the present. Western capitalism is partiarchal at its core... putting legal equality in place and saying "so now it's an even playing field :) " really misses the mark by a mile. It's an even playing field in terms of legal rights, but the whole stadium was built by men and plays to what are classically male strengths.

Evidence from nations that offer it suggest that it does help, somewhat, but not entirely. Women are still more likely to go part time (or stop work entirely) than men, outwith official parental leave. It's still seen as "higher risk" because they might decide not to come back at all or take a career break of several years.

Well sure, but that's just plain ole biology :joker: Whatever else we can change, we can't change (general) preferences and inclinations each sex has.

How do you know that the shows that have female presenters and greater viewing figures arent being paid less than male fronted shows with less viewers?

There is paternity leave it may not be for as long mainly due to the fact there is no physical recovery involved.

Because they're getting paid more, basically.

If you think a woman presenter isn't being paid enough, see if her average figures and airtime matches with a male counterpart who gets paid more.