Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
People generally get a bit more right-wing as they age but it's not universally true - the right have to actually offer benefits for the elderly (which they typically do) in order to entice them to vote for them, but an increasing number of middle-aged people who have struggled to get onto the housing ladder etc aren't feeling the benefits of Tory policies in the same way the Thatcherite generation did: because for as awful as I think Thatcher was, there can be no doubt that her policies had a beneficial impact upon those who actually did well during her reign. Not sure the same can be said now.

My wife's grandmother votes Tory almost exclusively because Maggie let her buy her council house for pittance.
 
If I'm pro abortion, LGBT rights, Euthanasia etc. etc. but anti Welfare-State (well, to an extent) and pro middle class people making more money, does that make me Ambidextrous?
 
If I'm pro abortion, LGBT rights, Euthanasia etc. etc. but anti Welfare-State (well, to an extent) and pro middle class people making more money, does that make me Ambidextrous?

Libertarian. You believe in individual freedoms, and that the state generally shouldn't get involved. (That was me when younger; I think I've generally moved left economically as I've got wealthier and seen peers struggling with feckall.)
 
Libertarian. You believe in individual freedoms, and that the state generally shouldn't get involved. (That was me when younger; I think I've generally moved left economically as I've got wealthier and seen peers struggling with feckall.)
Hmm, not quite. I do believe that there should be certain standards of universal healthcare and support for the poorer people but I'm very opposed to free handouts to those who make zero effort in life, which is a big problem here in Ireland. The middle are struggling to buy property and get by here at the moment whilst people abuse our very generous social welfare system. So I'm not anti social-welfare I just think there should be a reward for those who work over those who do not.
 
The ageing process generally wears you down and slows you down, but it gives you one big advantage you begin to realise that in your youth, you knew feck all!

Perhaps not, the brain does slow as we age too and works in a more economical way when processing information. People become more closed to new ideas and information and have a greater need for stability and structure.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/mr-personality/201410/why-are-older-people-more-conservative

I tend to think that many older people seek to hold onto the standards that were apparent when they were younger as the world progresses, rather than rejecting what they thought when they were younger.

My attention span is too fecked for books these days. Whatever minimal knowledge I have in this field comes from podcasts.

I have that too I've read about 1 book in the past 5 years but have listened to countless audiobooks. I kind of dread the idea of reading these days.
 
Hmm, not quite. I do believe that there should be certain standards of universal healthcare and support for the poorer people but I'm very opposed to free handouts to those who make zero effort in life, which is a big problem here in Ireland. The middle are struggling to buy property and get by here at the moment whilst people abuse our very generous social welfare system. So I'm not anti social-welfare I just think there should be a reward for those who work over those who do not.

One thing I liked about the US and Israel is the system where they could buy a plot of land for say $100 in a new town, and then were responsible for building the home themselves. We have load of land here (both in GB and Ireland) but it seems mostly ringfenced or owned by the old rich.

Definitely to the bold. But I don't begrudge unemployed people ipads or tv's etc, because they need a reason to live. Most of poverty is much more complex than 'lazy people.' I'm sure most people would like to be richer than poorer, and it's definitely an important function to make work worth it. I don't know much about Ireland, but in the UK they could do so much with tax relief and help to startup businesses, and push money into social welfare to bring people out of the malaise of not being able to go out of the house.

I kinda thing it's what the wealthy classes want the middle class to think, that it's the poor screwing them over. Meanwhile they are probably working for a company that posts billions in profits whilst barely getting by.
 
Hmm, not quite. I do believe that there should be certain standards of universal healthcare and support for the poorer people but I'm very opposed to free handouts to those who make zero effort in life, which is a big problem here in Ireland. The middle are struggling to buy property and get by here at the moment whilst people abuse our very generous social welfare system. So I'm not anti social-welfare I just think there should be a reward for those who work over those who do not.

Is it actually a huge issue or a hugely reported issue? I don't know ireland so that's a genuine question but when the english make such claims about our own welfare system it's usually overblown nonsense.

No one wants free loaders the difference is tolerance levels if 0.5% abuse the system is that acceptable or do you reduce the welfare state for all so it doesn't happen at all? 5%?
 
Lots has happened in the last day, and I haven't caught up with the whole thread, but... Between proroguing parliament and the thing with "accidentally" putting May's deal back to parliament - could that be a ruse for Boris to pretend he's been "forced" into putting the same deal (i.e. the only deal that's ever been realistically possible) back to the vote in hope that it might gain some support now that leaving with no deal is ruled out, at least in the short term?

Before it all kicked off this week, I was of the opinion that this would all conclude with a deal being put to Parliament in the finals days before the deadline.

Just to see if MPs blink.

But that relies on MPs who are still holding out hope for their preferred outcome, having that hope stripped away from them. Something that should've happened long ago.
 
Is it actually a huge issue or a hugely reported issue? I don't know ireland so that's a genuine question but when the english make such claims about our own welfare system it's usually overblown nonsense.

No one wants free loaders the difference is tolerance levels if 0.5% abuse the system is that acceptable or do you reduce the welfare state for all so it doesn't happen at all? 5%?
I would say it's a big issue that's largely drowned out by the media and government at the moment, yes. We had a presidential candidate last year who was polling at 2%, and then started dissing Travelers and people on the dole long-term whilst saying middle class people are getting fleeced and he ended up getting 19% of the vote. And yes, I realize the similarities with the US there!

Problem is in Ireland that our two main parties are essentially both center-right and end up cancelling each other out. One's in charge, economy goes bust, people put the other one in charge, rinse-repeat. We never get a proper left or right party in power to shake things up and hence we always have a government who want to do whatever they think will buy them votes instead of trying to actually implement real change. Our public transport, health system, and infrastructure is relatively poor by European standards and considering our wealth, and we also have €200bn of national debt, but unfortunately very little actually gets done about any of it because the governments pump any spare money we have during the boom times into social welfare and silly tax breaks here and there.
 
I've been impressed with Corbyn the last few days, but I can't help but think if he rejigged to shadow cabinet to more moderate, he would have a better chance at smashing the election.

Yvette Cooper as home secretary and Burnham as chancellor or something would go a long way to mending bridges and cutting off the accusations of a marxist purge.

I agree. Labour needs to be more palatable to the swing voter. Right now there are a lot of faces who's stock is not very high. Tom Watson for a start, total snake. Dianne Abbot - been made to look foolish quite a few times. There's a lot of people nobody know in the shadow cabinet too. Could probably do with a few more mainstream names.

I'd like to see David Lammy in a role too.
 
I can't see A50 being revoked without another referendum no matter how much I hate them.

To what end? Even if the result goes the other way what is the justification? You cant argue the result of the first has to be put aside to accommodate the second because people now know better, because leavers will then argue its 'project fear' that's convinced people to remain and that was all bull shit too; and so we go on around and around.

If, as the current majority of MP's in the Parliament think they know best, because they are MP's, because they see more than the man/woman in the street, because they are privy to information the rest of us don't have, etc. then they should revoke A50 saying we made a mistake in triggering this, we knew from the start the game was up and we should stay in the EU because we won't get a better deal than the one we have now. They should apologise for the ridicule they have held the Country up to in the rest of Europe and the World, by their bumbling and indecision and they are now willing to make amends and vote for what they believe in and make atonement if necessary losing their seats (as some have done already) and vote to revoke A50 and to stop Brexit... now that would be putting Country before party and they can then sleep at nights (even if they subsequently lose their jobs!).
 
Last edited:
I would say it's a big issue that's largely drowned out by the media and government at the moment, yes. We had a presidential candidate last year who was polling at 2%, and then started dissing Travelers and people on the dole long-term whilst saying middle class people are getting fleeced and he ended up getting 19% of the vote. And yes, I realize the similarities with the US there!

Problem is in Ireland that our two main parties are essentially both center-right and end up cancelling each other out. One's in charge, economy goes bust, people put the other one in charge, rinse-repeat. We never get a proper left or right party in power to shake things up and hence we always have a government who want to do whatever they think will buy them votes instead of trying to actually implement real change. Our public transport, health system, and infrastructure is relatively poor by European standards and considering our wealth, and we also have €200bn of national debt, but unfortunately very little actually gets done about any of it because the governments pump any spare money we have during the boom times into social welfare and silly tax breaks here and there.
But how many are actually abusing the system? And how much money does that amount to?
 
Quite incredibly - anonymous Minister tells The Times that Boris Johnson WILL resign rather than go to Brussels for an extension. Surely that just encourages the Opposition to delay an Election.
 
I agree. Labour needs to be more palatable to the swing voter. Right now there are a lot of faces who's stock is not very high. Tom Watson for a start, total snake. Dianne Abbot - been made to look foolish quite a few times. There's a lot of people nobody know in the shadow cabinet too. Could probably do with a few more mainstream names.

I'd like to see David Lammy in a role too.

I love David Lammy but he's a right maverick. Maybe international development or housing secretary. You feel he really cares but I wouldn't trust him with one of the big offices. I don't like Abbott or Watson much. Thornberry also not on my list of lovers. I can actually live with McDonnell (though perhaps not as chancellor) and Starmer is okay.
 
But how many are actually abusing the system? And how much money does that amount to?
Not a lot in the grand scheme of things but I'm sure you knew that otherwise you wouldn't have asked. It's not really about how many abuse it though, is it? It's the fact that so many can. People who work are struggling to afford to buy their own places to live and paying extortionate rent so obviously they're going to be miffed about it, everyone needs to blame someone!
 
The Party Conference season is almost here, what will be the main topics not discussed in open sessions?

Conservatives = deselection, who is next in the Stalinist purges?

Labour = Who is running this f***ing party?

Liberal Democrats = Who let in all these Tory/Labour 'carpet-baggers' and which seats will they pinch from true Lib-dems?

Not a mention of Brexit...possibly!
 
Set all the dogs on them!:lol:


EDtRXAWX4AYxxcb.jpg

EDtRXCwWkAEM6N_.jpg
 
Starting to be convinced that Swinson is an idiot, and they are going to miss Vince Cable.
 
Is there any chance Boris gets unseated in an election? His majority is only around 5,000.
there is always a chance - but if you add up libs and lab and greens it still does not close the gap plus it was quite a leave constituency
so unless farrage or somebody like that goes head to head with him i think he probably gets in
 
'Corbyn savages guide dog'
 
Quite incredibly - anonymous Minister tells The Times that Boris Johnson WILL resign rather than go to Brussels for an extension. Surely that just encourages the Opposition to delay an Election.

what would the timetable look like
They vote on 19th he has to ask for an extension withing was it 2 days?
so 22nd they can then take action to force him to and he resigns
Presumably then its for the conservatives to select a new leader who has to show they can command a majority in the commons to become PM to enable them to ask for the extension?
- it seems unlikley they would win that vote but isnt it then they have 14 days to try again before anybody else can show they can command a majority? - which would take us past the 14th?

Or is there some mechanism that stops that

The United Kingdom's constitution, being uncodified and largely unwritten, makes no mention of a prime minister. Though it had de facto existed for centuries, its first mention in official state documents did not occur until the first decade of the twentieth century. Accordingly, it is often said "not to exist", indeed there are several instances of parliament declaring this to be the case. The prime minister sits in the cabinet solely by virtue of occupying another office, either First Lord of the Treasury (office in commission), or more rarely Chancellor of the Exchequer (the last of whom was Balfour in 1905). However as the government will have to outline its legislative programme to parliament in, for example, the Speech from the Throne, the speech is sometimes used to test parliamentary support. A defeat of the Speech is taken to mean a loss of confidence and so requires either a new draft, resignation, or a request for a dissolution of parliament. Until the early 20th century governments when defeated in a general election remained in power until their Speech from the Throne was defeated and then resigned. No government has done so for one hundred years, though Edward Heath in 1974 did delay his resignation while he explored whether he could form a government with Liberal party support.

In such systems unwritten (and unenforceable) constitutional conventions often outline the order in which people are asked to form a government. If the prime minister resigns after a general election, the monarch usually asks the leader of the opposition to form a government. Where however a resignation occurs during a parliament session (unless the government has itself collapsed) the monarch will ask another member of the government to form a government. While previously the monarch had some leeway in whom to ask, all British political parties now elect their leaders (until 1965 the Conservatives chose their leader by informal consultation). The last time the monarch had a choice over the appointment occurred in 1963 when the Earl of Home was asked to become Prime Minister ahead of Rab Butler.
During the period between the time it is clear that the incumbent government has been defeated at a general election, and the actual swearing-in of the new prime minister by the monarch, governor-general, or president, that person is referred to as the "prime minister-elect" or "prime minister-designate". Neither term is strictly correct from a constitutional point of view, but they have wide acceptance. In a situation in which a ruling party elects or appoints a new leader, the incoming leader will usually be referred as "prime minister-in-waiting". An example or this situation was in 2016 in the United Kingdom when Theresa May was elected leader of the Conservative Party while David Cameron was still prime minister.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_minister
 
I find her very unlikeable
Yeah the Lib Dems have a real talent as of late for picking slimy characters. Charles Kennedy was their last leader were you didn't feel like he would stab you in the back to get ahead(Although maybe I just fell for his ever so nice sounding accent).
 
I find her very unlikeable

She isn't, but Ed Davey isn't much better. Didn't really have any charismatic candidates to pick from, Layla Moran who I preferred dropped out early. Once it went to the final 2 the members decided to go with the younger, more progressive Swinson. It is what it is.
 
What’s the incentive for Corbyn to call an election until after October 31st? Providing this bill goes through doesn’t it make it very likely that no deal is off the table.
No it means we get another 3 months extension. It also means that either BJ has gone back on what he pledged or has stepped down as PM.
 
She isn't, but Ed Davey isn't much better. Didn't really have any charismatic candidates to pick from, Layla Moran who I preferred dropped out early. Once it went to the final 2 the members decided to go with the younger, more progressive Swinson. It is what it is.
Progressive? I assume you mean relatively?
 
Yeah the Lib Dems have a real talent as of late for picking slimy characters. Charles Kennedy was their last leader were you didn't feel like he would stab you in the back to get ahead(Although maybe I just fell for his ever so nice sounding accent).

Vince Cable surely?