The United Kingdom and the Death of Boris Johnson as we know it.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Nope.

Must be.  No way Soggy will believe that the EU or UN already do the same thing....

[Tamesaint]

11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

What is your view on the EU/UN already moving people to Rwanda?

The Twitterati have let you down on this one.

Name the EU countries which have sent refugees to Rwanda.

[The Left Back]

On 17/06/2022 at 17:34, Weston Super Saint said:

Are there people who vote because they think who they are voting for will make their life worse?

I’m no expert on voting psychology so what follows is just a personal set of beliefs.

There are people who vote as citizens and people who vote as consumers. Citizens might well vote for policies or parties that make them personally worse off if they think it is the right thing for the greater good. Consumers generally vote for their own benefit, without consideration for others.

it’s slightly over simplistic to define this as right v left. But there’s no doubt it’s more aligned with Tory ideology to act/vote for your own personal gain. The think I hate most about Thatcher is not her ideology, it is that she was so effective as a leader. More than any other politician in my life she shaped a country to think and act ‘me’ over ‘we’. When she argued there was no such thing as society she was heartfelt in her belief that personal achievement and ambition would be a cure for the the shortcomings of the collective.  Today we see the consequences of that dogma still writ large in many attitudes and behaviours.

[AlexLaw76]

4 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

The Twitterati have let you down on this one.

Name the EU countries which have sent refugees to Rwanda.

It is an EU funded UN scheme

its not hard to find information on it.

link was posted further up here days ago.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, The Left Back said:

I’m no expert on voting psychology so what follows is just a personal set of beliefs.

There are people who vote as citizens and people who vote as consumers. Citizens might well vote for policies or parties that make them personally worse off if they think it is the right thing for the greater good. Consumers generally vote for their own benefit, without consideration for others.

it’s slightly over simplistic to define this as right v left. But there’s no doubt it’s more aligned with Tory ideology to act/vote for your own personal gain. The think I hate most about Thatcher is not her ideology, it is that she was so effective as a leader. More than any other politician in my life she shaped a country to think and act ‘me’ over ‘we’. When she argued there was no such thing as society she was heartfelt in her belief that personal achievement and ambition would be a cure for the the shortcomings of the collective.  Today we see the consequences of that dogma still writ large in many attitudes and behaviours.

Absolute nonsense!

Are you really trying to claim that someone who is unemployed would only vote for Labour for the good of the collective if they promised to increase benefits and make them easier to claim and would in no way be voting selfishly?

Likewise, pensioners would only vote lib dem if they promised a 20% rise in state pensions, purely for the good of everyone else?

Voters vote for the party that they think will benefit THEM the most. It's really that simple.

[The Left Back]

24 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Absolute nonsense!

Are you really trying to claim that someone who is unemployed would only vote for Labour for the good of the collective if they promised to increase benefits and make them easier to claim and would in no way be voting selfishly?

Likewise, pensioners would only vote lib dem if they promised a 20% rise in state pensions, purely for the good of everyone else?

Voters vote for the party that they think will benefit THEM the most. It's really that simple.

I’m not trying to claim either of those things. 
 

I have no problem you owning why you vote. And I’m happy to accept too many are like you and vote like a consumer. But don’t project your prejudice on to the whole of the electorate. 
 

it’s possible voters of all colours voted ‘in the national interest’ in their opinion. I’m not saying people wilfully choose the party that disadvantages them personally the most. Just that they had different reasons for voting

Edited 19 June, 2022 by The Left Back
More to add.

[Weston Super Saint]

19 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

I’m not trying to claim either of those things. 
 

I have no problem you owning why you vote. And I’m happy to accept too many are like you and vote like a consumer. But don’t project your prejudice on to the whole of the electorate. 

That's a huge assumption you've made about who I vote for and why!

[The Left Back]

I make no assumption of who you voted for. My assumption on why you voted was purely based on what you said

I’ve edited my last post while you were posting so that might help give more context for my thinking. This is my last post of the day so any more will have to wait.

I find it an interesting topic and you an interesting person to debate with.

For example, last local election I voted for Labour because I think they will run Southampton better than the tories. I’m not sure how this will effect me personally, I guess you could say my motivation was selfish because I want to live in a better city. But what was actually on my mind was libraries, schools and public spaces, none of which particularly effect me. I’m guessing, but don’t know, my council tax might be more with Labour than Conservative. So who was I voting for the benefit of? Not wanting to sound like a martyr or a hero, just a citizen more than a consumer. 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It is an EU funded UN scheme

its not hard to find information on it.

link was posted further up here days ago.

It is hard finding information about it. Perhaps you could enlighten us on the numbers and the particular countries involved, the background and circumstances?

As ever though you change the narrative and don’t deal with what is being said. What has this got to do with Johnson and the cabinet being crap, the Tories being self centred and not bothered about anyone other than themselves?

I”ll humour you though. It doesn’t take much imagination to work out that if I disagree with the basic policy of shipping people who seek asylum in the UK off to Rwanda that, depending on the circumstances, I wouldn’t agree with people seeking asylum in other countries being packed off to Rwanda either. I look forward to you providing the information that the EU and UN are mirroring the policy recently brought in by Johnson and Patel in the UK.

[AlexLaw76]

11 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It is hard finding information about it. Perhaps you could enlighten us on the numbers and the particular countries involved, the background and circumstances?

As ever though you change the narrative and don’t deal with what is being said. What has this got to do with Johnson and the cabinet being crap, the Tories being self centred and not bothered about anyone other than themselves?

I”ll humour you though. It doesn’t take much imagination to work out that if I disagree with the basic policy of shipping people who seek asylum in the UK off to Rwanda that, depending on the circumstances, I wouldn’t agree with people seeking asylum in other countries being packed off to Rwanda either. I look forward to you providing the information that the EU and UN are mirroring the policy recently brought in by Johnson and Patel in the UK.

it is on this very thread for a start. 

[Weston Super Saint]

53 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

I make no assumption of who you voted for. My assumption on why you voted was purely based on what you said

I’ve edited my last post while you were posting so that might help give more context for my thinking. This is my last post of the day so any more will have to wait.

I find it an interesting topic and you an interesting person to debate with.

For example, last local election I voted for Labour because I think they will run Southampton better than the tories. I’m not sure how this will effect me personally, I guess you could say my motivation was selfish because I want to live in a better city. But what was actually on my mind was libraries, schools and public spaces, none of which particularly effect me. I’m guessing, but don’t know, my council tax might be more with Labour than Conservative. So who was I voting for the benefit of? Not wanting to sound like a martyr or a hero, just a citizen more than a consumer. 

You stated very specifically that in your opinion I voted like a consumer.

Your previous post stated that consumers are aligned with Tory, ergo your assumption is that I voted Tory!

In your example above, you state you voted for the party that you felt would provide a better city for you to live in. Surely that is voting for your own personal benefit (it's incidental that your vote will potentially improve the lives of others, but first and foremost it is a 'selfish' vote as you chose yourself as the main beneficiary).

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

it is on this very thread for a start. 

Soggy must have missed the bit about the EU funding the scheme to the tune of over £10million.

As for the EU, that would mean 26 countries...

[AlexLaw76]

15 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Soggy must have missed the bit about the EU funding the scheme to the tune of over £10million.

As for the EU, that would mean 26 countries...

He read it

I wonder if he houses a refugee himself?

 

Edited 19 June, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[Turkish]

59 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

He read it

I wonder if he houses a refugee himself?

 

Course he didn’t. The tiresome bore Is very good and preaching to everyone what “we” need to be doing, by “we” he means everyone else. Loves to blame Johnson for everything including being refused a loan recently! 

[Picard]

 

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It is an EU funded UN scheme

its not hard to find information on it.

link was posted further up here days ago.

Under that scheme aren’t they housed in Rwanda while they are found countries to go to? Bit different to giving asylum seekers a one way ticket.

[Turkish]

10 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Under that scheme aren’t they housed in Rwanda while they are found countries to go to? Bit different to giving asylum seekers a one way ticket.

And Rwanda immigrants are 75% men aged 18-39. They’re about to go to war with Congo. Make of that what you will.

[trousers]

6 hours ago, The Left Back said:

she argued there was no such thing as society

"

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it... They're casting their problem on society.

And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.

It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour.

"

Edited 19 June, 2022 by trousers

[Winnersaint]

10 hours ago, trousers said:

"

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it... They're casting their problem on society.

And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.

It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour.

"

The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/09/mystic-mogg-jacob-rees-mogg-willam-predicts-brexit-plans

You can also see a lot of it in the work of this fella.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-architect-of-the-radical-right/528672/

Edited 20 June, 2022 by Winnersaint

[sadoldgit]

15 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

He read it

I wonder if he houses a refugee himself?

 

I haven’t read it. If I had why would I be asking you for more information?

As for housing any refugees. No. Have you? What has that to do with the Government policy to ship asylum seekers in the UK to Rwanda? Surely I would need to buy a property in Rwanda and house them there to fall in with Patel’s great plan (or should I say cunning plan as it has Baldrick written all over it).

As I am sure you understand, this plan has nothing to do with making it easier to deal with asylum seekers here and everything to do with trying to deter them in the first place. Those successful won’t even get to live here but thousands of miles away in Africa. If they wanted to resettle in Rwanda, don’t you think they would go there rather than risk their lives on the English Channel?

This is classic Johnson politics, deal with the issue by not actually dealing with it. In this case, it also involves not dealing with it by sending it somewhere else (on another continent, no less) and paying others deal with it for him.

It makes no difference whatsoever if I house or don’t house any refugees. This government doesn’t want them here (unless they are Ukrainian of course which are the only acceptable refugees in the current Johnson populist catalogue of tick box politics) which fits right in with the xenophobic types (ring any bells Batman) who lap up the Take Back Control of our Borders rhetoric.

When you get banned again perhaps you should come back next time as NigelFarage2016? 

Please don’t bother to come back with more deflection tactics. This is a UK issue (remember, we got our country back). These people have chosen, for whatever reason, to seek safe haven in this country - “this” being the operative word. Instead of kicking the issue into the long grass, in this case Africa, Johnson and Patel need to put their mighty intellects into to sorting out the mess that is the basic asylum seeking process in this country. They could start by treating these people as human beings and not just as unwanted statistics. 

[AlexLaw76]

What are your thoughts on the UN/EU already shipping people to Rwanda?

 

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

What are your thoughts on the UN/EU already shipping people to Rwanda?

 

You are going to have to supply details. No mention of it if I Google. 

Are you sure it isn't fake news??

[Highfield Saint]

16 hours ago, Picard said:

 

Rumour is that Johnson has taken out a super injunction to supress the story so please respect and dont read or share

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

What are your thoughts on the UN/EU already shipping people to Rwanda?

 

There are significant differences; under the UN scheme, refugees are taken from conflict zones to Rwanda whilst their applications are processed by UNHCR. They will either gain asylum in a destination country, or find a safe route back to their country of origin. They will only stay in Rwanda if they choose to. Under the UK scheme refugees are flown from a "safe" country to Rwanda, and their applications are processed as if requesting asylum in Rwanda itself, there is no option of an alternative destination country. If this application fails they may well be deported back to their region of origin, regardless of risk of harm.

Edited 20 June, 2022 by badgerx16

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, Highfield Saint said:

Rumour is that Johnson has taken out a super injunction to supress the story so please respect and dont read or share

Nah. It's all a lefty conspiracy about cake

Edited 20 June, 2022 by buctootim

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

What are your thoughts on the UN/EU already shipping people to Rwanda?

 

Stuck record? I have answered that question even though your effort at point scoring was ruined by you trying to conflate two completely different set of circumstances. But let’s play it your way shall we?

What are you thoughts on people who constantly go on social media and write posts deflecting from the main issues? Does the Tory Party pay you to do this? What are your thoughts on people in full time employment having to use food banks? What are your thoughts on Alexander Johnson’s lack of ethics? What are your thoughts on people who get kicked off of football forums and return prestending to be someone else? What are you thoughts on someone holding the position of Home Secretary having found to have bullied staff and not resigned? 
 

Anyone can play this game. It is not difficult is it? The thing is Delldays/Batman, you clearly have no problem lying (your claim not to be Delldays/Batman. Your claim to have met me despite not be able to say where and when) so it comes as no surprise that you support people with no ethics, zero moral compasses and a complete lack of humanity.

Off you go now, back to trawling Twitter for more spurious half truths and nonsense to back up arguments that do not exist other than in the fantasy world of a superhero wannabe.

[ecuk268]

Boris is currently in hospital for a "sinus operation", at least that's what they're saying.

Apparently it's actually to do something about this:

 

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

Boris is currently in hospital for a "sinus operation", at least that's what they're saying.

Apparently it's actually to do something about this:

 

A sinus is a hollow cavity in the skull. I suspect Boris' problem is that his entire skull is a sinus.

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Stuck record? I have answered that question 

 

You have not offered any thoughts on these organisations doing it, what so ever

[The Left Back]

21 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You stated very specifically that in your opinion I voted like a consumer.

Your previous post stated that consumers are aligned with Tory, ergo your assumption is that I voted Tory!

In your example above, you state you voted for the party that you felt would provide a better city for you to live in. Surely that is voting for your own personal benefit (it's incidental that your vote will potentially improve the lives of others, but first and foremost it is a 'selfish' vote as you chose yourself as the main beneficiary).

Is that it?  Is that the quality and quantity of your contribution here?  

You can't possibly know my assumptions about you, can you?  If you can, what am I assuming about you right now?  

So your logic is flawed.  You might think use of 'ergo' instead of 'therefore' or 'so' makes you sound clever or convincing.  Good luck with that.

And as for the argument about my voting motivations, I owned that myself, so your contribution was hardly revelatory.  

I'm genuinely interested in this topic and thought, perhaps wrongly, that you might bring something other than flawed analysis of my views.

So how about you bring something to the party?  Who have you voted for, when and why? 

For others who've lost track, I'm exploring our motivations for voting the way we do off the back on some earlier comments by someone (Millbrook?).

[badgerx16]

29 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You have not offered any thoughts on these organisations doing it, what so ever

Nor have you.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, The Left Back said:

Is that it?  Is that the quality and quantity of your contribution here?  

You can't possibly know my assumptions about you, can you?  If you can, what am I assuming about you right now?  

So your logic is flawed.  You might think use of 'ergo' instead of 'therefore' or 'so' makes you sound clever or convincing.  Good luck with that.

And as for the argument about my voting motivations, I owned that myself, so your contribution was hardly revelatory.  

I'm genuinely interested in this topic and thought, perhaps wrongly, that you might bring something other than flawed analysis of my views.

So how about you bring something to the party?  Who have you voted for, when and why? 

For others who've lost track, I'm exploring our motivations for voting the way we do off the back on some earlier comments by someone (Millbrook?).

My argument was very simple.  Everyone votes for their own benefit.  You've agreed that you too have voted selfishly to achieve a 'want' of your own.

You've already made your mind up about my voting preferences, so there really isn't anything I can say that will change your mind!

[aintforever]

31 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

My argument was very simple.  Everyone votes for their own benefit.  You've agreed that you too have voted selfishly to achieve a 'want' of your own.

You've already made your mind up about my voting preferences, so there really isn't anything I can say that will change your mind!

You’re talking bollocks as usual, everyone votes for their own reasons, not necessarily for their own benefit.

I’m not surprised an old gammon like you fails to grasp the concept though. Doing something to help someone else, what a crazy idea.

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You have not offered any thoughts on these organisations doing it, what so ever

Yes I have. If you bothered to read anything properly anybody ever says that disagrees with the Delldays/Batman narrative you would have notice a response in my post at 17:58 yesterday.

(Given that you don’t not respond to most of the points put to you, you have a bit of a cheek calling me out for not responding).

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

You’re talking bollocks as usual, everyone votes for their own reasons, not necessarily for their own benefit.

I’m not surprised an old gammon like you fails to grasp the concept though. Doing something to help someone else, what a crazy idea.

You've managed to grasp the wrong end of the stick once again, no surprise there.

I've never said that people don't vote to help out others, merely that that is a by product of their voting choice. 

I've clearly stated that I don't believe there is such a thing as 'true altruism' or 'reciprocal altruism' when it comes to voting, something that has so far not been dispelled - apart from some platitudes about helping others, but that just shows you haven't understood the context.

Edited 20 June, 2022 by Weston Super Saint

[farawaysaint]

I don’t care about voters or Rwanda can we possibly discuss number 10 burying stories in the free press? 😂

[whelk]

9 minutes ago, farawaysaint said:

I don’t care about voters or Rwanda can we possibly discuss number 10 burying stories in the free press? 😂

Yeah shocking but hey the plums that read those papers don’t care. Murdoch apparently having summer party tonight and most of the Cabinet will be there. Fucking free press my arse

[revolution saint]

41 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You've managed to grasp the wrong end of the stick once again, no surprise there.

I've never said that people don't vote to help out others, merely that that is a by product of their voting choice. 

I've clearly stated that I don't believe there is such a thing as 'true altruism' or 'reciprocal altruism' when it comes to voting, something that has so far not been dispelled - apart from some platitudes about helping others, but that just shows you haven't understood the context.

Yeah, sorry, but I'm struggling to follow your argument here.  You're saying no one ever has voted against their own interests?  If I vote for a party that says it's going to raise my taxes then I'm doing it for some longer term benefit, is that it?  Well, it's your opinion but I don't think I could presume to know the true intention of anyone who has ever lived (and voted).

[whelk]

You can imagine Daily Mail readers looking down on Star readers but I know which I would prefer to read. And yeah that is what woke means

 

Edited 20 June, 2022 by whelk

[spyinthesky]

Seems that Boris was trying to get Carrie Symonds, his bit on the side at the time, a job as a 'Special Advisor' @ £100k pa when he was Foreign Secretary.

True to form as it was also suggested he was trying to provide financial benefits for a well upholstered Jennifer Acuri when Boris was Mayor of London.

I suppose a slob like him has to pay for favours.

[igsey]

20 hours ago, ecuk268 said:

Boris is currently in hospital for a "sinus operation", at least that's what they're saying.

Apparently it's actually to do something about this:

 

 

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, igsey said:

 

Perhaps Carrie has made him have the snip.

[badgerx16]

53 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Perhaps Carrie has made him have the snip.

7 kids too late.

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

7 kids too late.

#bekind

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

#bekind

Not to that bellend.

[trousers]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Not to that bellend.

Was thinking more about his children.... 

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, trousers said:

Was thinking more about his children.... 

They have, and will continue to have, a more privileged and financially secure lifestyle than my children, so they don't need my 'kind' thoughts. There is absolutely no justification in this day and age for anybody to have so many children, and the same goes for Rees-Moggy.

[Tamesaint]

So Johnson refuses to answer, when asked at PMQs today, whether he considered giving his then bit on the side, glorious Carrie, a £100k job. Unbelievable.

The bloke is a complete and utter scumbag. He is a disgrace to his associates, to the Conservative party and above all to the nation. 

[whelk]

Tories going to love those by election results. Boris wins elections? Seems not. Wonder what fawning sap will be wheeled out to defend him  on this morning media rounds? 

nice to see red wall twats waking up to the fact these Tories ain’t looking out for them. 

[whelk]

Safe to say won’t be Oliver Dowden as the media guy. Although resigning now shows no sort of backbone more political survival 

Edited 24 June, 2022 by whelk