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

Voters
92. You may not vote on this poll
  • 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. #19601
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Labour are going to suffer regardless simply because of Onasanya.
    Probably, and won't help that their candidate for the seat has walked into an antisemitism row because of her Facebook history - shame Labour went out of their way to kill the chance of a joint remain party candidate.
    Last edited by Dizzeeyooo; 2019-06-03 at 06:26 AM.

  2. #19602
    Herald of the Titans dribbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Brexitia
    Posts
    2,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Maybe, but it will for their own reasons.

    Her deal was crap but that is the reality of the Brexit - people are going to have to compromise and whilst leave did win the referendum you cannot reasonably expect those who voted remain to sit back and accept that they will be worse off in order to satisfy the wishes of minority of those who voted with the winning side. It is now and always has been lose/lose. Many remainers did and have accepted the result but what happens if democracy decides that the answer from 2016 is no longer the correct answer for 2019? Will you be content to accept this or will you have to have democracy forced upon you?

    I am disappointed with your answer to be honest. Whilst her views on homosexuality are not relevant to Brexit they are most certainly relevant to her suitability as representative of the British people and the measure her values which in my opinion are not compatible with the values of the society we live in.

    Is Brexit that important that we must turn a blind eye to blatant bigotry? Don't get me wrong I know the remain side is far from perfect on this count. But surely things have gone too far when we excuse assault on our politicians because we disagree with them or we ignore homophobia because they agree with us?
    Dissapointed? Ann Widdecombe well into her 70's opined on human sexuality and gender fluidity in the 21st C and you are surprised that it didn't reflect the common view? How could she possibly be an expert on that subject? You think she is still swinging from the rafters after dark? And So what, she can't have an opinion on that? Was it illegal what she thinks?

    Ah but I see now that you say it is, comparing that her thought crime is exactly the same as clearly illegal physical assaults by criminals on politicians.

    I would never have believed you were an advocate of the thought police. That's disappointing.

  3. #19603
    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    and again he backs a brexit Britain..."I BACK BORIS"

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/919616...ster-uk-visit/

    So much common sense from one man in just a 10 minute interview, I hope he has a fabulous time on his state visit to the UK next week and enjoys tea with our Queen, our Boris and our Nigel. Americans are lucky to have him.
    So you're all worked up at Brussels but swoon all over America telling you what's what. Duly noted.

    Heel.

  4. #19604
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Maybe, but it will for their own reasons.

    Her deal was crap but that is the reality of the Brexit - people are going to have to compromise and whilst leave did win the referendum you cannot reasonably expect those who voted remain to sit back and accept that they will be worse off in order to satisfy the wishes of minority of those who voted with the winning side. It is now and always has been lose/lose. Many remainers did and have accepted the result but what happens if democracy decides that the answer from 2016 is no longer the correct answer for 2019? Will you be content to accept this or will you have to have democracy forced upon you?

    I am disappointed with your answer to be honest. Whilst her views on homosexuality are not relevant to Brexit they are most certainly relevant to her suitability as representative of the British people and the measure her values which in my opinion are not compatible with the values of the society we live in.

    Is Brexit that important that we must turn a blind eye to blatant bigotry? Don't get me wrong I know the remain side is far from perfect on this count. But surely things have gone too far when we excuse assault on our politicians because we disagree with them or we ignore homophobia because they agree with us?
    I think to some people it sadly is. They are not really affected by the specific bigotry in question, so the only thing that matters is that they get the result that matters. Some people simply see the government purely as a vehicle to deliver upon them Brexit, nothing else.

  5. #19605
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    So you're all worked up at Brussels but swoon all over America telling you what's what. Duly noted.

    Heel.

    US wants access to NHS in post-Brexit deal, says Trump ally I'm sure Dribbles would love becoming a colony of the US

  6. #19606
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispin View Post
    US wants access to NHS in post-Brexit deal, says Trump ally I'm sure Dribbles would love becoming a colony of the US
    Something tells me that The Times is also pissed at Trump meddling in British affairs...


  7. #19607
    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    Dissapointed? Ann Widdecombe well into her 70's opined on human sexuality and gender fluidity in the 21st C and you are surprised that it didn't reflect the common view? How could she possibly be an expert on that subject? You think she is still swinging from the rafters after dark? And So what, she can't have an opinion on that? Was it illegal what she thinks?

    Ah but I see now that you say it is, comparing that her thought crime is exactly the same as clearly illegal physical assaults by criminals on politicians.

    I would never have believed you were an advocate of the thought police. That's disappointing.
    I am disappointed because you've chosen to dismiss and make excuses for Widdecombe's comments. We're not talking about an old lady not being down with the kids and not knowing the correct pronouns, we're talking about someone - a representative of the UK - making comments about gay conversion.

    I could have respected but not agreed with the view that the Brexit party should focus on Brexit and the quicker it was delivered the quicker we could go back to a world without Widdecombe in politics. But to make excuses for her?! No way! I, wrongly it seems, expected better from you.

    A few posts ago you linked a prediction that the Brexit Party would take the most seats if a GE was held meaning that potentially they will be the party to form the next government. Can you honestly say that a party that allows one of its members to make comments about gay conversion is ready for government?

    Others may take the thought police bait but I will not.

  8. #19608
    Herald of the Titans dribbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Brexitia
    Posts
    2,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I am disappointed because you've chosen to dismiss and make excuses for Widdecombe's comments. We're not talking about an old lady not being down with the kids and not knowing the correct pronouns, we're talking about someone - a representative of the UK - making comments about gay conversion.

    I could have respected but not agreed with the view that the Brexit party should focus on Brexit and the quicker it was delivered the quicker we could go back to a world without Widdecombe in politics. But to make excuses for her?! No way! I, wrongly it seems, expected better from you.

    A few posts ago you linked a prediction that the Brexit Party would take the most seats if a GE was held meaning that potentially they will be the party to form the next government. Can you honestly say that a party that allows one of its members to make comments about gay conversion is ready for government?

    Others may take the thought police bait but I will not.
    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.

  9. #19609
    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.

  10. #19610
    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.

  11. #19611
    Moderator Northern Goblin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cumbria, England
    Posts
    12,728
    Did I just see a Julian Clary reference in 2019?

    I had to check he was still around after that.

  12. #19612
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Goblin View Post
    Did I just see a Julian Clary reference in 2019?

    I had to check he was still around after that.
    Have to admit, I did the same. Even did a double take when I initially read it.
    Often updated... ?

  13. #19613
    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 AeneasBK View Post
    Damnit hubcap, you are such a retard.
    Quote Originally Posted by mojusk View Post
    Oh, and stop being a "didn't do that in vanilla"-police. If we're doing something now that we didnt do back then, it's not because we had some sorta unwritten moral code back then, it's because we hadn't thought of it yet.

  14. #19614
    Channel 4 doing 30 mins of fun on US chicken production, recommend not watching it while eating

  15. #19615
    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.

  16. #19616
    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.

  17. #19617
    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 AeneasBK View Post
    Damnit hubcap, you are such a retard.
    Quote Originally Posted by mojusk View Post
    Oh, and stop being a "didn't do that in vanilla"-police. If we're doing something now that we didnt do back then, it's not because we had some sorta unwritten moral code back then, it's because we hadn't thought of it yet.

  18. #19618
    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.

  19. #19619
    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 AeneasBK View Post
    Damnit hubcap, you are such a retard.
    Quote Originally Posted by mojusk View Post
    Oh, and stop being a "didn't do that in vanilla"-police. If we're doing something now that we didnt do back then, it's not because we had some sorta unwritten moral code back then, it's because we hadn't thought of it yet.

  20. #19620
    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    [I]
    I get that may come across as wilfully ignorant, unsympathetic and unkind.
    I mean it certainly comes as if your have a very low bar on what poverty is.
    Hail Lilith and see you in Hell!

Posting Permissions

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