Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smileysharad

Brexit!

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, HappyHamza said:

 Why would people resent students for not paying council tax? They pay over the odds on rent to local property owners that have to pay council tax for the multi-tenanted properties,  as well as throwing hundreds of millions into the local economy.  It's the student population that allows many businesses to thrive and pay the business rates that allows the council to do other things.  Without the students Canterbury would be struggling, even with some tourism for the cathedral. 

 

And I went to UKC which is why I consider Canterbury christchurch to be a college 👍

Students are exempt from council tax the landlord doesnt pay any for the property at all as the occupants are excempt. Christ church isnt a college it is a university and only snobs who go to uni at the top of the hill would think it wasnt a uni, i am proud of my degree for artistically tripping over a paving slab they sold me for just £27000 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lgfualol said:

Can see Labour getting dicked unless Corbyn is binned off at some point before. Would be a laugh to see the state of the country after another 4 years of this government though, the last 4 years have been pretty impressively chaotic.

That would be a master stroke by the Labour Party. Unfortunately won’t happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sampson said:

Can you please post this evidence? Because I have genuinely never seen it. If there is evidence for that argument then fair enough (Apart from the fact psychology is a pseudo-science anyway ;))

 

However, general opinion I've seen on national news and on podcasts is that recent studies have shown the brain is not fully developed until around 25 and barely half of your frontal cortex is formed by 16. And there's been growing support to increase the age at which people are tried as adults or the age of consent because or this.

 

And the whole discussion has always felt very wooly and politically motivated by MP's who think it will increase their vote with no scientific evidence ever presented to back it up than because 16 year-olds should be considered legal adults or that we should give votes to legal minors. It's always felt very anti-scientific and disingenuous to push for the age of the vote to actually decrease to 16 at a time when the Scientific consensus is suggesting the opposite and that we should be reconsidering the age of maturity to be older in reality than it is in tradition - unless of course it means more votes for that MP's party.

 

Again, happy to be proved wrong if you have counter-evidence.

Completely agree about the nature of the 'what age should we vote at' discussion - it is clearly based on political agenda, not the science.

 

Using neuroscience as the basis for policy is tricky. I think it is largely because it is a comparatively new field science, and we actually don't know much about how the relationship between brain and behaviour. Very rarely is there a one-to-one correspondence between a brain region and a psychological function, so just because frontal areas are not fully developed, doesn't mean that people cannot think rationally (or at least rationally enough to be allowed to vote). I can only find a link towards a science paper for you, so it might not be the most accessible reading https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/

 

There's a section at the end of the paper about the APA (American Psychology Association), who weight in on legal cases in the US. They seem to have argued that evidence suggests that a) decision making faculties are indistinguishable between 15 year olds and adults, and b) that a 17 year old should not tried as an adult because of poorer decision making skills. So it seems I may have jumped the gun with my previous comment, and that the jury is out on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, z-layrex said:

gettyimages-1147482181_0.jpg

Trouble is she looks nice and tidy there, so you work the courage up to say hi, buy her a drink, have a great night and get a taxi home together.  Half an hour later you're enthusiastically giving her your vote when the light catches her face from the wrong angle and all you can think about is you're balls deep in a clean-shaven Mark Gatiss:

jo_swinson_2_tswk3a.jpg

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/10/2019 at 11:32, MattP said:

Said it before but I'm genuinely convinced some of this lot actually convinced themselves they won the last election. 

 

 

Twice in eight days - by the same interviewer lol

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Kinell, so how do people choose which clueless twat to vote for? Or do they go for one of the pointless parties.
It feels like choosing between a kick in the knackers, or slamming your bollocks against a moving boot.

 

I also read somewhere that the best way to get remain would be to vote for the brexit party, with figures to show they took voted from conservative.

 

Having said that, it was refreshing that corbyn attacked universal credit and felt like he was actually concentrating on real policies that could attract votes.

 

Personally couldnt bring myself to vote for him though.

 

Quandaries and conundrums 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

'Kinell, so how do people choose which clueless twat to vote for? Or do they go for one of the pointless parties.
It feels like choosing between a kick in the knackers, or slamming your bollocks against a moving boot.

 

I also read somewhere that the best way to get remain would be to vote for the brexit party, with figures to show they took voted from conservative.

 

Having said that, it was refreshing that corbyn attacked universal credit and felt like he was actually concentrating on real policies that could attract votes.

 

Personally couldnt bring myself to vote for him though.

 

Quandaries and conundrums 

The is nothing wrong in principle with universal credit just they way it has been implemented a bit like poll tax in principle a good idea the way it was introduced was down right awful. The has been recent criticism of the plans to combine the testing for pip and invalidity benefit  but it makes sense to carry out one assessment rather than two but only if it is carried out fairly and with out prejudice  giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. After all the medical personnel carrying out said test would be better placed working in the NHS they have your medical recorders which have your doctors findings so they have two opinions already they don't need three savings should be greater than the level of fraud actually committed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the irony is lost on the fvckwit Lib Dem’s..


 

“Millions of remain voters will be underrepresented in itv debate”

 

Well boo-hoo, millions of Leave voters have been underrepresented in Parliament for the last 3 years...not helped by your abhorrent disregard for the referendum result. 
 

Clowns. 

B46D5B1B-FDDC-4B52-867B-D323D6DDA47C.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Milo said:

Clearly the irony is lost on the fvckwit Lib Dem’s..

 

“Millions of remain voters will be underrepresented in itv debate”

 

Well boo-hoo, millions of Leave voters have been underrepresented in Parliament for the last 3 years...not helped by your abhorrent disregard for the referendum result. 
 

Clowns. 

 

The last 3 years? For more than 2 years we've had a parliament elected in 2017.....a year AFTER the referendum.

Are you telling me that "the people" (i.e. you, not me) voted for Brexit - and then went and filled the parliament with unrepresentative Remainer MPs?  lol

 

Of course, in reality, not everyone is as obsessed with Hard Brexit as you are. So, in 2017 as always, people voted for MPs for all sorts of different reasons...and the vast majority of those MPs went on to vote for one or other sort of Brexit.....just not the Hard sort that you presumably view as the only acceptable Brexit, despite there being no mandate for ANY specific type of Brexit, just for "Leave".

 

Plus, the outgoing parliament had just voted, in principle, for Johnson's deal by 30 votes - but he preferred to call an election in the hope of being able to avoid any compromise, to push through an ultra-hard Brexit & to have unchallenged power for 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The last 3 years? For more than 2 years we've had a parliament elected in 2017.....a year AFTER the referendum.

Are you telling me that "the people" (i.e. you, not me) voted for Brexit - and then went and filled the parliament with unrepresentative Remainer MPs?  lol

 

Of course, in reality, not everyone is as obsessed with Hard Brexit as you are. So, in 2017 as always, people voted for MPs for all sorts of different reasons...and the vast majority of those MPs went on to vote for one or other sort of Brexit.....just not the Hard sort that you presumably view as the only acceptable Brexit, despite there being no mandate for ANY specific type of Brexit, just for "Leave".

 

Plus, the outgoing parliament had just voted, in principle, for Johnson's deal by 30 votes - but he preferred to call an election in the hope of being able to avoid any compromise, to push through an ultra-hard Brexit & to have unchallenged power for 5 years.

Nah - but you know what I mean. Bit rich of them to be bleating about underrepresentation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Milo said:

Nah - but you know what I mean. Bit rich of them to be bleating about underrepresentation. 

 

I'm not a Lib Dem - and disapprove of their "revoke" policy.

 

But they can argue they're under-represented in parliament. In 2017, they got 7.4% of the vote but only 1.8% of the MPs. 

The SNP, on the other hand, are over-represented: 3.0% of the vote but 5.4% of the MPs.

 

Re. their legal case over TV coverage: So long as Swinson & the SNP get on some of the other debates, as they will, it should work out fair enough.

 

They have a point in saying that the Remain view (48%? 50%? 54%?) in this "Brexit election" is unrepresented when it's Johnson v. Corbyn. But the election isn't only about Brexit - and they are the only 2 with any realistic chance of becoming PM.

Based on previous performance, the Lib Dems would be over-represented if Swinson was in every debate - & you can't put too much weight on the Euro elections as they're partly used as a protest vote....& they'd have to argue for Farage to take part!

 

In reality, I'm sure the legal case is partly intended as election publicity for the Lib Dems as "the Remain party" & for the SNP as "the party that stands up for Scotland".

They'll also be hoping that it influences other broadcasters like BBC & Sky over the format of their debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/10/2019 at 19:20, Bobby Hundreds said:

ASDA are currently making their staff sign adapted contracts which involve them losing paid breaks and being able to change shifts at ‘reasonable’ notice or face the sack. Behaviour like this makes me even more certain we don’t want deregulation from the EU on employee rights and certainly need no more influence from our transatlantic neighbour. 

This has nothing to do wth Brexit, and has now been implemented. Whether it's right or not is another matter, but it is lawful within EU law. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oxford blue said:

This has nothing to do wth Brexit, and has now been implemented. Whether it's right or not is another matter, but it is lawful within EU law. 


Of course it’s within EU law because it happened. I think you’ve missed my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HappyHamza said:

 

No they haven't. 

A majority of Mps have voted for one form of brexit or another, just not at the same time. 

We'd have left last March if the ERG had supported a deal that didn't break the UK into two pieces. 

The lib dems stood on a manifesto of no brexit and area perfectly within their rights to vote as they choose. 

The last parliament did a great job in trying to bring to heel a government that attempted to ignore it's will at every turn.  In this country it is parliament that is sovereign and it is our representatives that exercise their democratically in the House.

Indeed.

 

To be fair, my little ranty post was never going to stand up to the kind of forensic scrutiny that it has been given. :D

 

 

 

I’ll try harder!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StanSP said:

You can pinpoint the moment he regrets asking lol

 

In all fairness at least he looked embarrassed and apologised to her afterwards.  As someone points out in the tweets in response much more civilised than the  yah boo politics that we seem to get in our parliament these days. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...