Rachel Reeves has demanded that pictures of men by male artists are removed from the state room in No. 11 Downing Street in the latest misandrist move from a so-called ‘progressive’ Government. The Telegraph has the story.
The Chancellor has reportedly imposed a new female-only rule on the decor, meaning that all artworks on display in the state room must be “of a woman or by a woman”.
The aim is to celebrate “amazing” female figures, but a Tory source branded the move “pathetic gesture politics”.
It comes just three weeks after Sir Keir Starmer had a portrait of Margaret Thatcher removed from her former study in No 10, sparking claims by the Conservative Party that he has “got a problem with women”.
He later said he took down the painting because he doesn’t like pictures of people staring down at him, and prefers landscapes.
According to reports in the Guardian and the Daily Mail, Ms Reeves told an all-female reception at No. 11 this week: “This is King James behind me, but next week the artwork in this room is going to change.
“Every picture in this room is either going to be of a woman or by a woman – and we’re also going to have a statue in this room of Millicent Fawcett, who did so much for the rights of women.”
Small in itself, it is nonetheless symbolic, telling us something worrying about the Chancellor’s idea of ‘equality’: away with the men, bring in the women.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Looks and sounds like the German ptb should be dusting off the old ww2 ss uniforms for their next party convention!
Small black clip on moustaches available at the door!
More like the old Communists of the DDR. People remember them in the Eastern Lande,and that is part of the reason they vote for the ‘Faaaar Right’ AfD.
The Germans just aren’t world class at fudging things like us here in the UK. They are too rational.
We on the other hand are world leaders at proclaiming two opposing things and carrying on quite happily. We are pragmatists.
Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
“Rational” ——-Do you think covering a beautiful country in 40,000 huge industrial turbines and hoping to soon have 55,000 of them is the work of rational human beings?
Absolutely. A lot of money is made in this way.
Do you mean having all those turbines is rational because they make money for people or do you agree with me it is irrational to cover a country in this clutter?
I mean that the people operating the turbines have a perfectly rational interest in the money they’re getting because of this. That they must be built is demanded by a law which came into force under Merkel and as all mainstream parties agree with the climate change agenda, ordinary people don’t have any input into this process. All they can do to express their opposition to it is vote for a party opposed to it. The largest of these is the AfD and not even the AfD stands a realistic chance to influence actual government decisions for the forseeable future.
As one of the people in the climate movie put it: Climate change hoax is a bad term. It should really be called a scam. And scams work because the victims can’t help it.
I think there is a not insignificant correlation between rationalism and disregard for aesthetic beauty.
Perfidious Albion.
If only there was an EU wide election in June where those opposed to the Nut zero nonsense could vote for Parties opposing Nut zero. Even the EU could not ignore a 70% plus anti vote which was enough to see off Varadkhar.
Are you sure?
The Irish simply got confused and put the cross on the wrong box. It is an easy mistake to make.
They are Irish!
I had my doubts as I was typing my original message!
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/2000-elderly-pawns-of-the-eco-nutters/
The 2,000 Swiss witches and the recently formulated new law on climate management passed by the ECHR.
There can be no question that the only sane action wrt the ECHR is to leave the Council of Europe or – even better – disestablish it altogether. Assuming the climate change CO₂ narrative was true, there’s absolutely nothing the government of Switzerland could do to improve the global situation in this respect short of declaring war on China, India and the USA and invading all three countries with armed forces in order to make them cut their CO₂ emissions and the chances of success wouldn’t exactly be great. This means the court ruling is outright disingenious.
And in doing so create even more C02, maybe even unclear, but don’t worry about any of that.
Neither of which will reduce CO2 output if the electricity is generated with gas or coal. Fortunately Germany’s neighbour, France, is happy for now to sell excess nuclear generated electricity to idiots who trashed their own nuclear power capability. However, when the EU rules about EVs start to bite in France they won’t have spare electricity to sell – which will royally screw up Germany meeting it’s Climate Protection Act requirements.
This is what happens when Ideology trumps common sense. But the pretend to save the planet house will all come tumbling down
You can live in cloud cuckoo land. You can pretend you are In Alice in Wonderland. You can Follow the Yellow Brick Road, but in the end there is only one world you are going to have to live in ——-The REAL ONE. ——-Reality has this very nasty habit of giving you a proverbial uppercut and knocking some sense into you. For all of these phony planet savers, Mike Tyson is winding up the big uppercut for you, and the sooner the better so we can get back to living in the real world.
Never tested it but some experienced street fighters swear by the open palm heel strike.
And the circus rolls on, as the sun weakens and we fall into 30 years of endless winters here in Northern Europe. I guess that’ll solve the immigration crisis. They’ll all be clambering back into their boats as the frostbite sets in.
Just one black shirt and an arm band away from doing it all over again.
Jawohl mein führer.
King Canute has left the building.
I do hope he is correct in his final paragraph, but there is a lot of pain to come before then.
Log burners in Scotland, anyone?