View Poll Results: 10 days left, what'll it be?

Voters
92. This poll is closed
  • Hard Brexit (crash out)

    45 48.91%
  • No Brexit (Remain by revoking A50)

    24 26.09%
  • Withdrawal Agreement (after a new session is called)

    0 0%
  • Extension + Withdrawal Agreement

    3 3.26%
  • Extension + Crashout

    9 9.78%
  • Extension + Remain

    11 11.96%
  1. #17641
    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    I am open minded and believe everyone should be allowed a personal opinion on personal matters and the broad church Brexit party is the same. From Ann Widdecombe types at one end of the spectrum to perhaps your Julian Clary types at the other and all points in between. It is not realistic to expect a god fearing traditional old woman in her 70's to hold the same views on sexuality as the experimental cool kids of today in Brighton.

    You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that they ever would.

    It is also very dangerous, intolerant and ageist of you to think everyone from 18-80 must be of the same sexual mindset as the gender fluid youngsters of todays world. What do you propose? Sending Widdecombe for some teenage conversion therapy to change her mind? Criminalise her, as you would those that assault politicians, for such heinous thoughts?

    Ann Widdecombe, lets face it is a little old lady, is as entitled to her opinion on human sexuality just as you, I or any other Tom Dick or Harry.

    You finding it unacceptable that she has admittedly dated views, makes the Brexit party more ready for government than the intolerant alternative thought police led society you propose.

    Just stop with your granny bashing, it's not big and it's not clever. Ann4ever.
    I'm not going to play this game so the conversation is not going to go anywhere but I'm sure someone will bite. Anyway thanks for the reply.

  2. #17642
    Being old does not preclude being open minded or willing to re-examine ones views. Being very young or elderly might serve as an explanation of why ones world view lacks perspective but is does NOT excuse it and it is quite frankly condescending as fuck to hold them to a lesser standard simply because of their age. THAT is ageism.

  3. #17643
    Moderator Northern Goblin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cumbria, England
    Posts
    15,960
    Did I just see a Julian Clary reference in 2019?

    I had to check he was still around after that.

  4. #17644
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    Have to admit, I did the same. Even did a double take when I initially read it.
    If it is performing an act; it's a very very detailed one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  5. #17645
    Channel 4 doing 30 mins of fun on US chicken production, recommend not watching it while eating

  6. #17646
    Well the State Visit is going well, it's been pretty funny watching Trump on his best behaviour as he fangirls on QEII, can't wait to watch him revert to type if he has to spend any time round May Infront of a microphone, reap the whirlwind Mrs May.

    Phillip Hammond rejects reality and substitutes it with his own. Just look around you guys! You certainly can't see any of the poverty from No.11.

  7. #17647
    Quote Originally Posted by Kronik85 View Post
    Well the State Visit is going well, it's been pretty funny watching Trump on his best behaviour as he fangirls on QEII, can't wait to watch him revert to type if he has to spend any time round May Infront of a microphone, reap the whirlwind Mrs May.

    Phillip Hammond rejects reality and substitutes it with his own. Just look around you guys! You certainly can't see any of the poverty from No.11.
    Tory rejecting the idea of poverty is basically creationists rejecting evolution. It's their reason for being.

  8. #17648
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallisto View Post
    Tory rejecting the idea of poverty is basically creationists rejecting evolution. It's their reason for being.
    That said, £70 a week spending money after all household bills are paid isn't what the word "poverty" brings to mind, at least to me, if that is indeed the criteria they set for being "destitute".

    Certainly in my life I've lived on thinner margins. Albeit with the awareness of safety nets if I had ever hit "dire straits", I don't want to get into the debate about the psychology of poverty.

    If that is the bar they set, then yes I could easily believe that 14m Brits live in those conditions but I'd be more concerned with the 'presumably-smaller-although-I-won't-claim-to-know-by-how-much' number within that 14m who eg. don't have ANYTHING left at the end of the week after all household bills are met and are racking up debt from various sources trying to stay afloat.

    OH and I'm not trying to say that the Tories have done anything to help the poorer familes of Britain or w/e, fuck 'em etc. just that the figure of 14m people and the criteria I saw in the article seem to give a biased vision of Britain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  9. #17649
    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    That said, £70 a week spending money after all household bills are paid isn't what the word "poverty" brings to mind, at least to me, if that is indeed the criteria they set for being "destitute".
    After housing only.
    Means you have everything to do on these 70£. Eating, clothing and equipping yourself, heating your home, washing, cleaning, having a car + gas, depending on your job etc, you may need a computer+internet to hope to achieve anything job hunting wise (or does the old door to door still work everytime in the UK ?)

    Now I'm not living there so I may be mistaken about the cost of living. But it does seem tight as fuck to me
    That and the idea that the slightest problem (car/computer/heating/... breaks) puts you into debt/massive discomfort

    Now ofc I'm also biased if you want.
    But I prefer to be biased towards "the overall goal is the improvement of life for people, so let's move "poverty" goalposts and not pretend it's all good" rather than "see, no one is poor, everything is fine"

    edit : there may be a point to be made about "are destitute those who lacked 2 of these necessity items", if you imagine that some people are dumb and buy luxuries over necessities.
    I'm sure it happens -_-
    Last edited by Thrundi; 2019-06-04 at 06:56 AM.

  10. #17650
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrundi View Post
    After housing only.
    Quote Originally Posted by Article
    - meaning they had less than £10 a day after housing costs
    For reference, £10 a day is what you'd get when you're claiming unemployment benefits as of about 5 years ago, the system has recently changed. That was to cover all the things you listed, as housing (rent only) and council tax were covered by a different benefits system, and like I say that has changed into one big "Universal Credit" system now, so *maybe* benefit-seekers are much worse off for it, although I understand that the main complaint where issues have occured is with the administration of the money (not getting any for 6 weeks at a time when switching over) rather than the actual amounts it eventually awards.

    I guess we just have to disagree on what those words "housing costs" mean, which is all my comment was about really, silly semantics. Going without toiletries once a month ain't pleasant and neither is choosing not to turn the central heating on to save money on your energy bill, but the word "poverty" kinda implies that heating or toiletries are a luxury you could only dream of in your struggle to put food in your mouth. Homeless people living off other peoples charity and sleeping under a railway pass, not people going to sleep in a bed with covers, and hark at the idea of someone who owns a car being considered "destitute".

    So yeah I'm not arguing that there aren't *poor* people in Britain. Just that calling them "destitute" or living in "poverty" is a bit of a stretch from eg. parts of Africa or the Indian subcontinent. Where there is actual poverty.

    And I agree; do what we can to help the poorest. But don't change the definition of poor to mean "The least well off 1/5TH of the country" because within that 1/5th there's going to be a big difference between the people who need the help most and the people who 'need' it considerably less.

    I get that may come across as wilfully ignorant, unsympathetic and unkind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  11. #17651
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    I mean it certainly comes as if your have a very low bar on what poverty is.
    Fair enough. No one is gonna convince me someone who owns a car is in poverty, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  12. #17652
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Is a car a luxury or a basic need? Considering that for many people, a car is a requirement for them to work, there is a case to be made for it being a basic need since it enables employment.
    Ehm, I'll concede that one if you can show some evidence it's a statistically significant number of people who are working jobs that *demand* a car. Living 30 mins from your workplace and not wanting to take a bus is not a lifestyle that demands a car. Although try telling that to some of the people I've worked with that maybe they should just ... walk ... to work, and yes, gosh rain is such an inconvenience isn't it - you'd get nowhere

    On the flipside I'd happily agree that a computer and access to the internet is as much as a basic need as can be considered one. Fortunately there is free access to both all over the country, so having one at home (which isn't remotely as expensive as owning/operating a car) isn't even a necessity; but hell it's a big QoL improvement to get your job search etc. done at home

    I reject the notion that someone working 40 hours a week is living in poverty. Unless they barely speak English and don't understand the words "minimum wage law" and are being grossly exploited.

    Living beyond your means is not and should not be anyone elses problem.

    But again, this whole mini-debate is entirely about "my personal interpretation of words" so if people want to say "No, common usage of the words poverty and destitute ought to bring to mind people who only have £70 a week to spend on what they choose" then fair enough I have to recalibrate my lexicon
    Last edited by AeneasBK; 2019-06-04 at 07:42 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  13. #17653
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Is a car a luxury or a basic need? Considering that for many people, a car is a requirement for them to work, there is a case to be made for it being a basic need since it enables employment.
    Let's ask a starving kid from Africa... "What do you think is more important to you right now, a cup of rice or a brand spanking new BMW..?"
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  14. #17654
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    Let's ask a starving kid from Africa... "What do you think is more important to you right now, a cup of rice or a brand spanking new BMW..?"
    I mean, that's a bit of an extreme and absurd comparison to make, and Nymrohd may well be right in arguing that - in the UK - having a car should be considered a basic need because (eg.) all the jobs have been moved out of city centres and public transport doesn't cut it. I disagree, but if he can provide any evidence that a significant proportion of lowest income jobs would require a car I'll concede it. I'm 34 and for most of my adult life I've worked minimum wage or been unemployed and I've never needed a car, but then I've also lived in a town (80k pop.) or city (300k pop.) so maybe my stance is skewed.

    The sort of job that would demand personal transport that come to mind are things like labouring/handiman work where you might need a van to transport all your tools/kit; but then again most of those jobs pay well over minimum wage too, but maybe I'm just not imaginative enough at 9 in the morning
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  15. #17655
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    An old used car can be very cheap but maintenance is still costly and when they break down you are fucked.
    I'd say this is also why I don't consider a car a basic need, every single on of my friends who passed their test at 17/18 and drove when at that age was premanently skint due to the cost of keeping their old bangers on the road (better to spend £1000 on a car that isn't going to break down every 3 months than £400 on a car that cost you £600 in repairs for the first quarter, and nearly everyones first car is the cheapest available) so I've always viewed them as expensive luxury items compared to riding a bike, or taking the bus.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  16. #17656
    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    I mean, that's a bit of an extreme and absurd comparison to make, and Nymrohd may well be right in arguing that - in the UK - having a car should be considered a basic need because (eg.) all the jobs have been moved out of city centres and public transport doesn't cut it. I disagree, but if he can provide any evidence that a significant proportion of lowest income jobs would require a car I'll concede it. I'm 34 and for most of my adult life I've worked minimum wage or been unemployed and I've never needed a car, but then I've also lived in a town (80k pop.) or city (300k pop.) so maybe my stance is skewed.

    The sort of job that would demand personal transport that come to mind are things like labouring/handiman work where you might need a van to transport all your tools/kit; but then again most of those jobs pay well over minimum wage too, but maybe I'm just not imaginative enough at 9 in the morning
    No, you have a valid point. And him raising the bar to European standards where you're considered poor while having a solid roof over your head, regular food intake and basic luxuries like TV, telephone and these days I believe even internet paid for you by the state... that's not a fair argument.

    What his point should be is inequality, not poverty. See, if I own the best BMW but everyone around me is driving Lambos... I'm poor in comparison. If I'm earning 500k a year but everyone around me is a billionaire that gets 500k/y from interest rates alone, I'm poor in comparison. That's a bullshit argument and just feeds into the entitlement attitude that is the root of some of our political unrest.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    We are not talking about a spanking new BMW. We are talking about your mother's 20 year old Honda that you use to drive to work because you live an hour away. An old used car can be very cheap but maintenance is still costly and when they break down you are fucked.

    And a car is replacement for other transportation costs. So you'd have to compare it with using the subway at least twice a day, or taking the bus or even a train depending on the distance.

    Additionally, most people work for SMEs, not large companies. It is not at all uncommon for an SME to not have a company car which means that you may need a car for work. Maybe you get reimbursed for gas but maintenance costs?
    If you live an hour away (by car!) from your workplace, you either are in a city and not using public transport enough or you really need to make some big decisions in your life. Like moving closer to work... a car is not strictly necessary in Europe. The US? Sure, maybe... but not Europe.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  17. #17657
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    If you live an hour away (by car!) from your workplace, you either are in a city and not using public transport enough or you really need to make some big decisions in your life. Like moving closer to work... a car is not strictly necessary in Europe. The US? Sure, maybe... but not Europe.
    Nope. In your experience maybe. But it's far from the one and only truth.

  18. #17658
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    We are not talking about a spanking new BMW. We are talking about your mother's 20 year old Honda that you use to drive to work because you live an hour away.
    I live an hour away from work and I take the bus.

  19. #17659
    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    I'd say this is also why I don't consider a car a basic need, every single on of my friends who passed their test at 17/18 and drove when at that age was premanently skint due to the cost of keeping their old bangers on the road (better to spend £1000 on a car that isn't going to break down every 3 months than £400 on a car that cost you £600 in repairs for the first quarter, and nearly everyones first car is the cheapest available) so I've always viewed them as expensive luxury items compared to riding a bike, or taking the bus.
    When I lived in Blackpool I didn't need to drive, now I live Stoke it's essential. Caring for my grandad with dementia requires a 20 minute drive, using public transport takes 2 hours. My point being that public transport can be fucking shit and indirect.

    But we aren't talking about young adults buying cars they can't afford here. We are talking about a fifth of the population who at best can't afford to take part in society, that's not good and saying "oh but they aren't starving" isn't helpful or insightful, it's you trying the bootstraps argument which is bullshit. Let's not forget that unemployment is recorded at under 4%, that's jarring if 20% of then country is in poverty.

    If you.are living on 70 quid a week after rent with food and amneties to pay for you are not going to be able to better yourself and if you have children to care for in that situation then it's fair to say they aren't going to have much opportunity.

  20. #17660
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    It can definitely work. But some times there is no decent bus route to work (or you'd need to change multiple buses and it would take far more time than you can possible waste in transport). And the bus is still a daily expense. When we are talking about just 70£ a week, more than 10 of those go to the bus if you qualify for a discount. And that's the cheap option
    Any government responsible either for the environment or for those struggling to make ends meet should subsidise mass transit heavily. It's a utility anyway and we should ditch market-oriented thinking whenever we are discussing urban transportation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •