Jump to content

The 2024 General Election - July 4th

sadoldgit

By sadoldgit
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
  On 15/11/2023 at 15:49, Sheaf Saint said:

Congratulations on demonstrating spectacular ignorance by dismissing both gender dysphoria and mental illness all in the space of one sentence.

No wonder you consider transphobia to be an invented term. Saves you from having to see it in yourself.

Expand  

Anyone who considers themselves a they and non binary is clearly having mental health problems. If someone were anorexic, how we would treat them is most likely to give them therapy and over a period of time help them to accept themselves for who they are and learn how to live without the desire to starve themselves. We certainly wouldn't play along with their delusion and tell them how fat they were. 

It's infinitely kinder to understand that these people need compassion but they also need to learn to accept themselves for the man or woman that they are and not ask the world to change entirely to fit themselves into a made up category that they decided to invent five minutes ago. 

  • Like 1
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
  On 15/11/2023 at 15:58, Fan The Flames said:

Not getting into mate, google it and work it out for yourself.

Expand  

It's bollocks mate. There's one definition and the fact that Labour can't articulate that makes them look ridiculous to the average voter. They are lucky that the Tories are so awful but this sort of thing certainly doesn't help them. 

  • Like 1
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
  On 15/11/2023 at 15:45, Fan The Flames said:

I didn't want to open it all up again, but you can be a women (or man) by birth or you can legally have your gender reassigned. That is the legal position in this country. They are two different things and the problems arise when people try to fudge it to mean the same thing.

Expand  

None of that is a definition of anything. If you believe sex and gender are different then you have to accept that:

  1. You aren’t assigned a gender at birth and you only have one if you choose to have one. What’s bemusing there is people who claim to be non-binary are effectively saying they don’t identify as something they’ve made up. I don’t choose to identify as a man and I’m not attracted to anyone based on gender. IF you want these rules to apply, then I am by definition a non-binary pan sexual and so are 99% of people.
  2. If sex and gender are different then there should be no issue at all. Separate society, where necessary (I.E. prisons, sports, changing rooms) based on sex and say that all genders are welcome in, for E.g. a woman’s changing room. The problem is that the very people who are insisting that they are different then immediately conflate the two by campaigning for the male sex who gender identify as female to be allowed in women’s spaces. Well, which is it? Are they the same thing or not?
  • Like 2
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 15/11/2023 at 14:52, Tamesaint said:

What exactly did he do that was so appalling? 

Expand  

Parking the invasion of Iraq, this country was infinitely better off under Blair as PM than it has been under the subsequent Tory PMs. Wherever you look things were so much better. Education, the NHS, public services, still in the EU, pretty much everything was better. How anyone can claim that he was a worse PM than the shitshower that had followed him is beyond comprehension. Does anyone remember people talking about how the country was broken and that nothing worked under Blair? That is all you hear now and it isn’t hyperbole. I didn’t like Blair and didn’t vote for Labour in those days, but by any metric he was far  better for internal UK politics and the UK population than Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss (😜) or Sunak.

  • Like 5
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
  On 15/11/2023 at 18:30, sadoldgit said:

Parking the invasion of Iraq, this country was infinitely better off under Blair as PM than it has been under the subsequent Tory PMs. Wherever you look things were so much better. Education, the NHS, public services, still in the EU, pretty much everything was better. How anyone can claim that he was a worse PM than the shitshower that had followed him is beyond comprehension. Does anyone remember people talking about how the country was broken and that nothing worked under Blair? That is all you hear now and it isn’t hyperbole. I didn’t like Blair and didn’t vote for Labour in those days, but by any metric he was far  better for internal UK politics and the UK population than Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss (😜) or Sunak.

Expand  

How about we don’t park the invasion Iraq?

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
  On 15/11/2023 at 18:30, sadoldgit said:

Parking the invasion of Iraq, this country was infinitely better off under Blair as PM than it has been under the subsequent Tory PMs. Wherever you look things were so much better. Education, the NHS, public services, still in the EU, pretty much everything was better. How anyone can claim that he was a worse PM than the shitshower that had followed him is beyond comprehension. Does anyone remember people talking about how the country was broken and that nothing worked under Blair? That is all you hear now and it isn’t hyperbole. I didn’t like Blair and didn’t vote for Labour in those days, but by any metric he was far  better for internal UK politics and the UK population than Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss (😜) or Sunak.

Expand  

Do you think that might have something to do with the fact social media hadn't taken off when Blair was PM?

  • Haha 3
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)

You can tell we are getting near panto season;

UK Government - "Rwanda is a safe country"

UK Supreme Court - "Oh no it isn't"

UK Government - "Oh yes it is".

Edited by badgerx16
  • Haha 2
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
  On 15/11/2023 at 21:20, The Kraken said:

Fucking hell. Here we are back into the culture wars bullshit on a politics thread. Well done lads. Have at it 👍

Expand  

Did it all start from a post from someone who thought Braverman had a cock?

  • Haha 1
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
  On 15/11/2023 at 21:31, whelk said:

Did it all start from a post from someone who thought Braverman had a cock?

Expand  

She is a cock.

Actually, can a woman be a cock? How about a gender neutral person? 

The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 15/11/2023 at 19:10, badgerx16 said:

 

Expand  

Rory Stewart is a fraud. He tries to portray himself as a ‘nice’ Tory but he’s a fucking awful man. Deep down he’s a really good little Tory boy and behind the plummy act he’s a bit of a horror.

Edited by The Kraken
  • Like 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted

Interesting that BBC lead with Starmer rebellion when the PM has basically said doesn’t like the law so wants to change it. And spunked millions pursuing when apparently any lawyer worth their salt could see this coming as needed treaty with Rwanda in place at least.

  • Like 2
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
  On 16/11/2023 at 10:00, Weston Super Saint said:

This makes no sense - half finished sentence!

Enlighten me to the point....

Expand  

I cannot enlighten you but draw attention to what you seemed to miss.  What was your point about not being in power? This was the query not that he thought they were in power. So somewhat pointless reply. HTH

  • Like 2
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 16/11/2023 at 10:39, whelk said:

I cannot enlighten you but draw attention to what you seemed to miss.  What was your point about not being in power? This was the query not that he thought they were in power. So somewhat pointless reply. HTH

Expand  

My point was (as you clearly seemed to have missed it), that Labour front benchers are happily deserting the ship over a vote that was never going to achieve anything meaningful and in complete opposition to the party leader's instructions.

If they are willing to do that for a meaningless vote, imagine what they would do when they finally come back to power and the vote actually means something.

It highlights (contrary to certain posters' current views), that when Labour take back power sometime in the next 12 months, that it won't all be rainbows and unicorns and that self serving politicians will continue to be just that and will always put themselves first rather than the 'needs of the people'.

Edited by Weston Super Saint
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
revolution saint

revolution saint

Posted
Posted
  On 16/11/2023 at 11:03, Weston Super Saint said:

My point was (as you clearly seemed to have missed it), that Labour front benchers are happily deserting the ship over a vote that was never going to achieve anything meaningful and in complete opposition to the party leader's instructions.

If they are willing to do that for a meaningless vote, imagine what they would do when they finally come back to power and the vote actually means something.

It highlights (contrary to certain posters' current views), that when Labour take back power sometime in the next 12 months, that it won't all be rainbows and unicorns and that self serving politicians will continue to be just that and will always put themselves first rather than the 'needs of the people'.

Expand  

Depends on your point of view - many of them voted precisely because their constituents wanted them to vote for a ceasefire so in that case it was actually putting "the needs of the people" first.

It was a pointless vote but nevertheless.

  • Like 4
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Perhaps Starmer should have allowed his MPs to vote with their conscience (or for the will of their constituents) but I can see why he did what he did. He is positioning himself as the next PM and showing an appetite for leadership and the ability to take a difficult decisions that Sunak so plainly lacks. The vote doesn’t change a single thing in the real world though, which means that the self sacrifice of Jess Phillips, who was doing a great job about DV against women, was always going to be for nothing.

A cease fire is not going to happen at this time. Surely better to call for something that is more likely to happen and will give a small amount of respite and resupply of aid for the civilians with the possibility of more pauses which could lead to a full ceasefire in time?

  • Like 1
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted

The problem is, if Starmer backs a cease-fire then the Israeli lobby over here will cry 'antisemitism', the Tories will follow suit and you end up with 'LABOUR ANTI-SEMITSM' headlines in the gutter press again. It's a difficult call but whatever we do our here won't make the slightest difference to what Israel do anyway so he's probably doing the right thing for the Labour Party.

  • Like 5
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
  On 16/11/2023 at 12:25, aintforever said:

The problem is, if Starmer backs a cease-fire then the Israeli lobby over here will cry 'antisemitism', the Tories will follow suit and you end up with 'LABOUR ANTI-SEMITSM' headlines in the gutter press again. It's a difficult call but whatever we do our here won't make the slightest difference to what Israel do anyway so he's probably doing the right thing for the Labour Party.

Expand  

He should stick to his guns/principles/beliefs, yes. Given it was a vote for the pantomime season.

whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
  On 16/11/2023 at 11:03, Weston Super Saint said:

My point was (as you clearly seemed to have missed it), that Labour front benchers are happily deserting the ship over a vote that was never going to achieve anything meaningful and in complete opposition to the party leader's instructions.

If they are willing to do that for a meaningless vote, imagine what they would do when they finally come back to power and the vote actually means something.

It highlights (contrary to certain posters' current views), that when Labour take back power sometime in the next 12 months, that it won't all be rainbows and unicorns and that self serving politicians will continue to be just that and will always put themselves first rather than the 'needs of the people'.

Expand  

I wasn’t taking time to miss your point, just picking up on your obtuse reply to poster. You could have answered that initially 

  • Like 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
  On 16/11/2023 at 13:01, badgerx16 said:

Cleverly tying himself in knots trying to rescue a policy he apparently once called "batshit".

Expand  

He was asked that both on BBC and Sky today. Could see him thinking thanks for that Yvette

Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted

More posts strangely deleted by the mods. God only knows why  my post pointing out that those recently sacked from the Labour front bench would not be sacked for long was considered to be suitable for deletion. 

I think the power of deletion has gone to the heads of mods. Mind you, I bet this post will be deleted as it criticises the mods. 😁😁

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
  On 16/11/2023 at 14:52, Tamesaint said:

More posts strangely deleted by the mods. God only knows why  my post pointing out that those recently sacked from the Labour front bench would not be sacked for long was considered to be suitable for deletion. 

I think the power of deletion has gone to the heads of mods. Mind you, I bet this post will be deleted as it criticises the mods. 😁😁

Expand  

I have no idea what you’re on about.

  • Like 1
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
  On 16/11/2023 at 12:45, Tamesaint said:

It makes you wonder how long the suspensions from the front bench will last for the likes of Jess Philips. A meaningless vote. 

Expand  

Yep, really, well and truly deleted. Gone. 

  On 16/11/2023 at 14:52, Tamesaint said:

More posts strangely deleted by the mods. God only knows why  my post pointing out that those recently sacked from the Labour front bench would not be sacked for long was considered to be suitable for deletion. 

I think the power of deletion has gone to the heads of mods. Mind you, I bet this post will be deleted as it criticises the mods. 😁😁

Expand  

 

Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
  On 16/11/2023 at 15:07, Lighthouse said:

I have no idea what you’re on about.

Expand  

 

  On 16/11/2023 at 15:07, Lighthouse said:

I have no idea what you’re on about.

Expand  

Apologies. I can see my post now. It definitely wasn't there an hour or so ago. 

I am out of the country atm in a part of the world where the Internet can be dodgy. My only explanation. 

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
  On 16/11/2023 at 16:53, Tamesaint said:

 

Apologies. I can see my post now. It definitely wasn't there an hour or so ago. 

I am out of the country atm in a part of the world where the Internet can be dodgy. My only explanation. 

Expand  

If you stumble across Portishead pier on your travels give us a shout - apparently it doesn't exist anymore in Portishead ;)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...