As mistakes go, I think this one needs a bit more than a 'Whoops! Soz! Lol!'

[Burney]

:hehe:

https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1044602832119226368

[Peter]

:hehe:

https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1044602832119226368

You must be enjoying the Labour Party conference. Threats of a General Strike, utter confusion over a second referendum, a chorus of ugly people with regional accents attacking each other, some cockney **** equating eastenders with Palestinians and refusing to leave the stage.

Just like the good old days of the Labour movement. Total and utter chaos :)

[Burney]

You must be enjoying the Labour Party conference. Threats of a General Strike, utter confusion over a second referendum, a chorus of ugly people with regional accents attacking each other, some cockney **** equating eastenders with Palestinians and refusing to leave the stage.

Just like the good old days of the Labour movement. Total and utter chaos :)

Yup. Let's also not forget Tosh whatsisface claiming he used to get up an hour early in the 80s so he could hate Thatcher for longer :hehe:

Oh, and this absolute charmer, of course.

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1044613595752005634

[Peter]

Yup. Let's also not forget Tosh whatsisface claiming he used to get up an hour early in the 80s so he could hate Thatcher for longer :hehe:

Oh, and this absolute charmer, of course.

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1044613595752005634

To be fair, for an 'academic' she seems quite nice.

Note the Chair trying to silence her the minute the conversation turns remotely 'tricky'.... you know what happens when you try and silence people.....

[Burney]

To be fair, for an 'academic' she seems quite nice.

Note the Chair trying to silence her the minute the conversation turns remotely 'tricky'.... you know what happens when you try and silence people.....

Yes. 'The list will doubtless stretch from here to Jerusalem'. What a sweet, deeply racist old dear.

I also liked Lady Nugee yelling 'No pasaran!' like a dumpy La Pasionaria whose husband just happened to make half a million selling off Housing Association properties.

Oh, and there was Corbyn telling bare-faced lies about his relationship with Iranian state TV, of course. But Corbyn telling blatant, easily-disproved lies is run-of-the-mill these days. His glazed-eyed acolytes don't seem to care.

[PSRB]

Yes. 'The list will doubtless stretch from here to Jerusalem'. What a sweet, deeply racist old dear.

I also liked Lady Nugee yelling 'No pasaran!' like a dumpy La Pasionaria whose husband just happened to make half a million selling off Housing Association properties.

Oh, and there was Corbyn telling bare-faced lies about his relationship with Iranian state TV, of course. But Corbyn telling blatant, easily-disproved lies is run-of-the-mill these days. His glazed-eyed acolytes don't seem to care.

Who was the lady with great bangers, calling for a general strike?

[Burney]

Who was the lady with great bangers, calling for a general strike?

No idea. The biggest tit in the room was Richard Burgon, though, who joined the standing ovation and then tried to deny he'd done it despite it being on film.

It really is quite terrifying how stupid these people are.

Oh, here's another one. :hehe:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7350592/app-developers-should-have-products-inspected-by-the-state-to-make-sure-theyre-not-racist-labour-say/

[Peter]

Yes. 'The list will doubtless stretch from here to Jerusalem'. What a sweet, deeply racist old dear.

I also liked Lady Nugee yelling 'No pasaran!' like a dumpy La Pasionaria whose husband just happened to make half a million selling off Housing Association properties.

Oh, and there was Corbyn telling bare-faced lies about his relationship with Iranian state TV, of course. But Corbyn telling blatant, easily-disproved lies is run-of-the-mill these days. His glazed-eyed acolytes don't seem to care.

I thought he handled the interview questions around the referendum terribly. There was an obvious answer there- if you have a second referendum on the deal, and people reject it, where does it leave us? At that point, remain has to be a discussion at the very least. He would prefer that discussion to be resolved through a general election.

It isnt ****ing rocket science.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

PSRB "Who was the lady with great bangers, calling for a general strike?"

Laura Smith

[PSRB]

PSRB "Who was the lady with great bangers, calling for a general strike?"

Laura Smith

Ta :thumbup:

[Burney]

I thought he handled the interview questions around the referendum terribly. There was an obvious answer there- if you have a second referendum on the deal, and people reject it, where does it leave us? At that point, remain has to be a discussion at the very least. He would prefer that discussion to be resolved through a general election.

It isnt ****ing rocket science.

It leaves us going out with no deal. It means there would be a mandate for no deal. :shrug:

Anyway, he isn't going to allow a vote to remain because he'd lose millions of votes. He wants to pay lip service to the idea of a second referendum in order to keep his members quiet, but the last thing he wants is an actual referendum.

Besides, McCluskey and McDonnell have ruled out a remain vote and they run the Labour Party now, so everyone else can whistle for all the good it does.

[Burney]

Ta :thumbup:

I wouldn't touch her means of production with yours, mate. :-(

[Peter]

It leaves us going out with no deal. It means there would be a mandate for no deal. :shrug:

Anyway, he isn't going to allow a vote to remain because he'd lose millions of votes. He wants to pay lip service to the idea of a second referendum in order to keep his members quiet, but the last thing he wants is an actual referendum.

Besides, McCluskey and McDonnell have ruled out a remain vote and they run the Labour Party now, so everyone else can whistle for all the good it does.

I dont think it does give a mandate. It merely rejects that deal. Its a terrible referendum question which is why it mustn't happen. And it wont.

The most interesting point is what happens if parliament rejects the deal.... that will be interesting.

[Monty92]

I dont think it does give a mandate. It merely rejects that deal. Its a terrible referendum question which is why it mustn't happen. And it wont.

The most interesting point is what happens if parliament rejects the deal.... that will be interesting.

I would be amazed if the ERG camp voted down a deal, given it would very, very likely precipitate a Labour government. I tend to assume at that point they'll take the view that a bad Brexit is better than no Brexit and a Labour government.

[Burney]

I would be amazed if the ERG camp voted down a deal, given it would very, very likely precipitate a Labour government. I tend to assume at that point they'll take the view that a bad Brexit is better than no Brexit and a Labour government.

I wouldn't bet on that. I also wouldn't bet on Labour winning a subsequent election.

[Peter]

I wouldn't bet on that. I also wouldn't bet on Labour winning a subsequent election.

THe immediate effect of parliament voting down the deal would be May losing the leadership. It wouldnt precipitate an election as a vote of no confidence wouldnt carry the House.

If the aftermath was the need for an election the Tories would fight it with a new leader.

I honestly cant see Labour winning an election. Not in a million years, even in the strangest political climate in living memory.

[WES]

I dont think it does give a mandate. It merely rejects that deal. Its a terrible referendum question which is why it mustn't happen. And it wont.

The most interesting point is what happens if parliament rejects the deal.... that will be interesting.

I would argue that the only outcome for which there is a mandate is no deal. Anyone who voted Leave and didn't understand that there was a possibility of no deal is so thick they don't deserve the right to vote in the first place.

Any other outcome can be debated with regard to whether or not it honours the Leave vote, no deal cannot.

[Burney]

THe immediate effect of parliament voting down the deal would be May losing the leadership. It wouldnt precipitate an election as a vote of no confidence wouldnt carry the House.

If the aftermath was the need for an election the Tories would fight it with a new leader.

I honestly cant see Labour winning an election. Not in a million years, even in the strangest political climate in living memory.

Nor me. For all Sir C moaning about it, their polling performance against a Tory government in complete turmoil is utterly, utterly pathetic. People forget that Ed fùcking Miliband led the tories by 13 points in 2013 and STILL got his arse handed to him two years later. Corbyn can't even achieve a regular lead. That is genuinely awful.

[Peter]

I would argue that the only outcome for which there is a mandate is no deal. Anyone who voted Leave and didn't understand that there was a possibility of no deal is so thick they don't deserve the right to vote in the first place.

Any other outcome can be debated with regard to whether or not it honours the Leave vote, no deal cannot.

The only thing there is a mandate for is leaving. THat is all we were asked and all we answered. It is nothing to do with being thick or not.

To respect that mandate, we have to leave whatever the cost, whatever the manner, deal or no deal.

[WES]

Nor me. For all Sir C moaning about it, their polling performance against a Tory government in complete turmoil is utterly, utterly pathetic. People forget that Ed fùcking Miliband led the tories by 13 points in 2013 and STILL got his arse handed to him two years later. Corbyn can't even achieve a regular lead. That is genuinely awful.

I'll tell you what scares me with regard to the possibility of a Labour government - the youth of this country.

Someone wrote in the Times this morning that we're far enough away from nationalization of industry that a large number of voters can't remember how appalling it was. And that the youth are actually looking for dramtic change; with no point of reference to understand how dangerous that might be because since they've been alive there has been very little difference between what has been considered left or right wing.

Uncle Jeremy offering them some free money might have the work shy f*ckwits out in droves. :-(

[Burney]

The only thing there is a mandate for is leaving. THat is all we were asked and all we answered. It is nothing to do with being thick or not.

To respect that mandate, we have to leave whatever the cost, whatever the manner, deal or no deal.

:nod: Now you're getting it. :thumbup:

[Peter]

Nor me. For all Sir C moaning about it, their polling performance against a Tory government in complete turmoil is utterly, utterly pathetic. People forget that Ed fùcking Miliband led the tories by 13 points in 2013 and STILL got his arse handed to him two years later. Corbyn can't even achieve a regular lead. That is genuinely awful.

I wouldnt trust polls at the moment. I just cannot see Corbyn even holding the gains of the last election. I think you could have a genuine debate as to which party is in greater turmoil at present. Labour are an embarrassment.

[WES]

The only thing there is a mandate for is leaving. THat is all we were asked and all we answered. It is nothing to do with being thick or not.

To respect that mandate, we have to leave whatever the cost, whatever the manner, deal or no deal.

:sigh: none of that is relevant if you can't define what Leave means. And the only Leave that everyone can be clear about is no deal. Anything else becomes a debate that cannot be won. The only thing that will bring clarity is no deal. It will allow us to clearly understand what it was that Leave voted for and what therefore the impact is.

Then we can hang them all when it goes wrong. :-)

[Burney]

I'll tell you what scares me with regard to the possibility of a Labour government - the youth of this country.

Someone wrote in the Times this morning that we're far enough away from nationalization of industry that a large number of voters can't remember how appalling it was. And that the youth are actually looking for dramtic change; with no point of reference to understand how dangerous that might be because since they've been alive there has been very little difference between what has been considered left or right wing.

Uncle Jeremy offering them some free money might have the work shy f*ckwits out in droves. :-(

Don't worry about the youth. They don't vote and the votes of those who do are spread geographically in such a way that makes little difference. Their supposed 'great surge' in 2017 was shown to be massively exaggerated. The people who achieved that vote for Corbyn in 2017 were pìssed-off, middle-aged remainers making a protest vote.

[Peter]

:nod: Now you're getting it. :thumbup:

Which is why we should see that mandate for what it is- wrong!

A second referendum with the option of remain is the only option. In fact, I am not even sure that leaving in any manner should be an option in the next referendum as it clearly isnt working.

It should be remain, or remain plus.

Nice, clear choices.

[Peter]

:sigh: none of that is relevant if you can't define what Leave means. And the only Leave that everyone can be clear about is no deal. Anything else becomes a debate that cannot be won. The only thing that will bring clarity is no deal. It will allow us to clearly understand what it was that Leave voted for and what therefore the impact is.

Then we can hang them all when it goes wrong. :-)

There is no lack of clarity as to what leave voted for. They voted to leave! That and nothing more.

There isnt any confusion at all. It doesnt matter why individuals voted leave, or what their reasons were. They all voted for exactly the same thing.

You can define leave as much as you like but the fact will always remain (pardon the pun) that nobody voted for that. All they did was answer a question.

It doesn't matter why you ordered steak.

[Peter]

Don't worry about the youth. They don't vote and the votes of those who do are spread geographically in such a way that makes little difference. Their supposed 'great surge' in 2017 was shown to be massively exaggerated. The people who achieved that vote for Corbyn in 2017 were pìssed-off, middle-aged remainers making a protest vote.

Apart from in Canterbury, perhaps. And all those constituencies where you think muslims are abusing the postal votes :)

[WES]

Don't worry about the youth. They don't vote and the votes of those who do are spread geographically in such a way that makes little difference. Their supposed 'great surge' in 2017 was shown to be massively exaggerated. The people who achieved that vote for Corbyn in 2017 were pìssed-off, middle-aged remainers making a protest vote.

So I should ignore your recent track record on election predictions? :rubchin:

[WES]

There is no lack of clarity as to what leave voted for. They voted to leave! That and nothing more.

There isnt any confusion at all. It doesnt matter why individuals voted leave, or what their reasons were. They all voted for exactly the same thing.

You can define leave as much as you like but the fact will always remain (pardon the pun) that nobody voted for that. All they did was answer a question.

It doesn't matter why you ordered steak.

Nope, you still don't get it. :shrug:

[Peter]

Nope, you still don't get it. :shrug:

There isnt anything to get.

[Burney]

Apart from in Canterbury, perhaps. And all those constituencies where you think muslims are abusing the postal votes :)

They are abusing the postal votes, p. If there weren’t widespread ballot-rigging in Labour’s favour, why would Labour be getting its knickers in a twist about a basic and perfectly reasonable requirement like having to show ID in order to vote?

[Peter]

They are abusing the postal votes, p. If there weren’t widespread ballot-rigging in Labour’s favour, why would Labour be getting its knickers in a twist about a basic and perfectly reasonable requirement like having to show ID in order to vote?

Do you have to show ID when you vote?

Its a tactic that has always been used to disenfranchise the poor and minorities.

I am ashamed of you, b. You are a modern day Jim Crowe.

[Burney]

Do you have to show ID when you vote?

Its a tactic that has always been used to disenfranchise the poor and minorities.

I am ashamed of you, b. You are a modern day Jim Crowe.

I have no problem showing ID to vote. We require people to show ID in order to open a bank account, buy cigarettes, knives, medicines and alcohol, get married, pick up a parcel from the post office, etc, etc, etc. Why would we not require it so that someone can prove they are who they say they are when doing something so fundamental to our system as voting?

We're not living in 1920s Alabama, p. These are not illiterate sharecroppers we're talking about. ID is something everyone has in one form or another.

[PSRB]

I have no problem showing ID to vote. We require people to show ID in order to open a bank account, buy cigarettes, knives, medicines and alcohol, get married, pick up a parcel from the post office, etc, etc, etc. Why would we not require it so that someone can prove they are who they say they are when doing something so fundamental to our system as voting?

We're not living in 1920s Alabama, p. These are not illiterate sharecroppers we're talking about. ID is something everyone has in one form or another.

My glw, who had never voted until we met, was amazed she didn't have to provide any ID to vote.

[Peter]

We're not living in 1920s Alabama, p.

No thanks to you :)

You'd love that, wouldnt you.

Just for the record, this is still going on in american even today.

[Luis Anaconda]

No thanks to you :)

You'd love that, wouldnt you.

Just for the record, this is still going on in american even today.
Harsh on b - not sure the weather would suit him for a start

[Peter]

Harsh on b - not sure the weather would suit him for a start

He has a deep and lasting affection for the Deep South. Not the viscious, brutal, enduring racism so much as the legacy of states rights and the right of peoples to freedom from a centrist tyranny that destroys their way of life.

THen of course there's the racism :)

[WES]

He has a deep and lasting affection for the Deep South. Not the viscious, brutal, enduring racism so much as the legacy of states rights and the right of peoples to freedom from a centrist tyranny that destroys their way of life.

THen of course there's the racism :)

Which is ironic as I can't imagine an environment to which he and his misanthropic tendencies are less suited.

My experience in the southern United States is that it is filled with happy, amiable people who like nothing more than a casual chat, often to people they have never met. It is filled with cheery smiles and casual 'good mornings' to strangers walking past, endless sunny days and an unfailingly positive attitude towards all that life has to offer and a general ambiance of bonhomie which often results in intimate conversations with complete strangers who behave as though they have known you all their lives and would do pretty much anything for you.

Burney would f*cking hate every last minute of it. :hehe:

[Peter]

Which is ironic as I can't imagine an environment to which he and his misanthropic tendencies are less suited.

My experience in the southern United States is that it is filled with happy, amiable people who like nothing more than a casual chat, often to people they have never met. It is filled with cheery smiles and casual 'good mornings' to strangers walking past, endless sunny days and an unfailingly positive attitude towards all that life has to offer and a general ambiance of bonhomie which often results in intimate conversations with complete strangers who behave as though they have known you all their lives and would do pretty much anything for you.

Burney would f*cking hate every last minute of it. :hehe:

Maybe. But then he likes that as well, which is also why he reads The Guardian :)

[WES]

Maybe. But then he likes that as well, which is also why he reads The Guardian :)

Fair point. Imagine how often each and every day he would be outraged!

He'd be in heaven. :-)

[Peter]

Fair point. Imagine how often each and every day he would be outraged!

He'd be in heaven. :-)

I've never been but it sounds wonderful.

I took my partner for a driving lesson in Colchester last night. At one roundabout the person behind us charged the wrong way round a keep left sign and screamed 'you ****ing ****' out of the window.

This is where I live :(

[Viva Prat Vegas]

Perhaps it was that bent copper with the vendetta
On his evening off

[Peter]

Perhaps it was that bent copper with the vendetta
On his evening off

He has thoroughly bottled it. One letter from a very good solicitor with his name on the door and I havent heard from him in six weeks.

I keep asking him for a convenient time to come in and make my complaint but he never seems to respond :)

[Viva Prat Vegas]

:clap:
Vindicated!
A victory for the honest citizen

[Peter]

:clap:
Vindicated!
A victory for the honest citizen

As long as the honest citizen in question has either the money for a world class solicitor or who happens to have one in the family. In my case it was the latter....

Its not over yet, but the tide of the war certainly seems to be turning.

[Burney]

He has a deep and lasting affection for the Deep South. Not the viscious, brutal, enduring racism so much as the legacy of states rights and the right of peoples to freedom from a centrist tyranny that destroys their way of life.

THen of course there's the racism :)

The south is alright, actually. I prefer it to the north. Mind you, Americans in general are disgustingly ‘nice’ and after a few days in the country I invariably find myself wanting to be unnecessarily rude to them just to watch the awful smiles drop off their faces.

Anyone who thinks the North are the good guys in in the War of the States is an idiot. That’s just a FACT.

[WES]

The south is alright, actually. I prefer it to the north. Mind you, Americans in general are disgustingly ‘nice’ and after a few days in the country I invariably find myself wanting to be unnecessarily rude to them just to watch the awful smiles drop off their faces.

Anyone who thinks the North are the good guys in in the War of the States is an idiot. That’s just a FACT.

Well yeah that's probably true on pretty much every level. Provided you ignore the whole slavery bit, of course.

[Burney]

Well yeah that's probably true on pretty much every level. Provided you ignore the whole slavery bit, of course.

Meh. Slavery would’ve gone anyway sooner or later. It’s a retarded economic model in an industrialised world. It was certainly not a good enough reason need for the cream of Anglo-Irish American youth to slaughter each other. A great shame.

[Peter]

Meh. Slavery would’ve gone anyway sooner or later. It’s a retarded economic model in an industrialised world. It was certainly not a good enough reason need for the cream of Anglo-Irish American youth to slaughter each other. A great shame.

Its a war born of the fact that neither side could conceive the demand of the other. It was a disaster on every measure, its only actual achievement being the abolition of slavery and even that was done in a way that ensured a further century of brutal racial oppression and violence.