As long as Dan H isn't invited.

He will want us all to have exactly the same sized beach huts.

Sounds like a good idea for a Holers holiday timeshare!

For obvious reasons, i didnt carry on yesterday.
I think we are saying the same thing. I think you should be paid according to what you produce, whether it is goals scored or streets cleaned.

You say fairness and i say degrees of equality. I think you get embroiled in the argument of equality, possibly without seeing what is happening. Is women's football more watched or even better than the men's game. No, but why should that stop them asking for more money? How many people have you worked with that weren't as good as you but had that ability to sell themselves better than you or nag their boss to get paid more?

Wimbledon, i think is different. I don't think the players are paid on viewership but rather a set amount from a pot, and if that is the case why shouldn't the ladies get the same?

I will go back to the media on this, especially the tabloids. They know how to get people wound up and in hissy fits over stuff that rarely happens in everyday life. They report the extremes not the norm.

Isn't the lack of fairness over equal payouts in Tennis obvious? The ladies aren't responsible for the size of the pot. That's independent of the tournament....and Wimbledon went to 'equality' on pay outs some years ago.

[Link]

As you stated in your first remarks, they should be paid in relation to how much interest their game produces......Not piggy back off the men's game.

That is happening in Women's football, it is given far more advertising than its popularity warrants and this has helped it considerably. Still, the wages the females are paid at the higher end are in excess of the money from attendances.

No one has a problem with people pushing their luck on how much they are paid.....They have a problem with the system working ideologically instead of by the market.....It's gender politics interfering with business.

Male tennis players are being underpaid and female tennis players overpaid.....Hence the inherent unfairness of the term, 'equality' can sometimes produce.

If this situation were reversed we would never be hearing the end of it would be a 'cause celebre' of the feminists....Yet you want to underplay it and even argue that it's justified.

As for your commentary on the media, are you suggesting that my views on matters like this come from newspapers? If so, wouldn't that be as patronising as me suggesting that your viewpoints was just brainwashed into you by some communist-lite school teacher or family member.

I wouldn't presume to suggest that.....I see the point in your left leaning neo and social liberalism...I just think it leads to downgraded societies.....As we are seeing before our eyes.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2019 2.25pm)

Where would we go.....I suggest Corsica.

Yeah Castro would go ape if someone had a differently favoured ice cream.

My comment on the media is completely valid, but was't directed at you, just a general point. You may say that newspapers are dying out but the tabloid style is very easy to find online, eg, so and so DEMOLISHES so and so or so and so OUTLOGICS so and so.

Again, the only issue i see in the tennis payouts is the number of sets played. I think you undervalue thd impact of Serena Williams. Are the ladies piggy backing off her? Most probably, just like the lower male players piggy back off Federer and Nadal.

Again, it's not a left or right thing. The question is why are organisations paying the women more or 'equally'? Because at the end of the day it doesn't cost them that much more to do it, the marketing is brilliant and now they open themselves to the other 51% of the market. That is capitalism.

What would you rather see? Equality of Opportunity?
I am not so sure that is a route anyone wants to go down.

That is the point though. Sports is a bit of a false comparison, because, the argument could be that the top 3 male players subsidise the whole sport. So why should an unknown Norwegian male player get the same for reaching the semi finals as Federer, when the only reason we are watching, is because of Fed?

You conflate the amount paid for participation with ability and watchability. The top top players will get the best sponsorships. So the tournament prize money is a basic fee, almost for attending and rewarding progression.

Novak or Fed may be the best, but is it fair they earn so much more than say engineers, bin men or teachers?
You will argue yes, because that is their market rate, I would argue no, because if tennis players, doctors and binmen decided to stop working tomorrow for a year. I know which ones would be missed most.

So, it's fair to say there is a massive inequality in the society, in regards to pay, not just between men and women but in our own groups.

Equality of opportunity is a great phrase, a bit like tightening our belts, but in practice it isn't fair or desirable.

My understanding of it is that everyone should have the same opportunities to do what they want or to be considered for whatever job, etc.

It is an equal outcome. How can you possibly give everyone an equal opportunity, with everything that entails?

As much as I would love to criticise the BBC in this case I don't think its fair.

The BBC is under strict election guideline "Purdah" if they refuse to show Johnson because he wont talk to Andrew Neil they face the real prospect of being labeled bias not just by the rest of the media but by OFCOM or whoever is responsible for the guidelines.

The real issue here is the rules that do not compel politicians to be interviewed by a specific outlet let alone interviewer however those outlets have to show equal coverage. All of this favours the politicians who can pick and choose and still cry foul play.

Perhaps the rule should be changed to force the party leaders to do 1 interview with the major outlets who had the right to choose the interviewer. I doubt they would agree with that idea and what sanctions could you impose if they refused an interview?

Boris doesn't want to be interviewed by Neil because Neil was his editor at the Spectator and probably has a dustbin load of dirty secrets on him. That plus Neil is in devastating form Boris has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Just to add I would be very happy if Marr invited Neil on his show at the same time as BJ