Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

As time runs out in the Brexit transition YouGov has “Brexit Wrong” once again with a double digit l

124»

Comments

  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 682
    Stocky said:

    I see Betfair haven't settled up on USA overnight.

    One day I shall wake up to some money in my BF account.

    Has anyone contacted BF over this? Their website is no help.
    Your great, great-grandchildren will think kindly of you as they tell their grandchildren that a distant ancestor has left them a small legacy that their grandchildren will reflect upon as a piece of social history.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?

    I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Labour thinks any deal, however awful, is better than no deal, and given the timescale there is no chance to improve any deal that is presented. Secondly, if Labour opposes a deal it is absolutely certain that the Tories and their press will headline on 'Labour trying to stop Brexit again'. So it makes sense to me.
    It doesn`t make sense. Those who want to leave the EU no way want a crap deal with the EU. I sincerely hope that Johnson does not put such a deal before the house.
    Agreed.

    Good deal > No deal > Bad deal.

    The idea that any deal is better than no deal is nonsensical.
    You missed on step out and got another the wrong way around.

    Remain> Good deal> Bad deal> No deal.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    Pulpstar said:

    Exhibit #1332234 of why elections are won from the centre
    https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1331483636613459969

    I agree in general but this s is a misleading example to be fair. A 3rd party candidate to Omar’s left got 10% of the vote in her district
  • RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    That was a horrifying read.

    What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?

    As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.

    Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
    I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
    Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
    Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
    And therein lies the problem.
    The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
    For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
    Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
    Like this one?
    https://twitter.com/ArchRose90/status/1330555266245529609
    That's free speech, that is.

    You have to take the rough with the smooth.
    One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
    Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
    Absolutely.

    But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".

    Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
    Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
    So the Grauniad is in your eyes "the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub"?
    Steve Bell sure is.
    Well yes and the Grauniad have chosen to keep him employed for decades. But I thought Ian might hold them in higher regard?
    Yes, though I wouldn't judge other Guardian writers on their bosses' choice of cartoonists.
    I've worked in companies where some of my co-workers were fools, and I wouldn't like someone to judge me for their behaviour.
    Except the image quoted was named as "Editorial" ie it reflected the paper's own editorial line, it was not simply the opinion of a columnist. The paper's own editorial line was also to publish a hideously racist cartoon by Bell too. So yes I'm happy to judge their editorial line one against the other.
    Just whilst we're on the subject, I haven't looked at the cartoon other than the screen grab below. Seems to be portraying Patel as a bull. Is that racist? Something to do with Hinuism? Or bull-in-a-china-shop?

    This is what I don't like about Bell. Not only is he not funny, there's too often situations where he seems to be deliberately sailing close to the wind, or something can be taken as one of two things. Dog whistles vs eye of the beholder stuff. Seems a bit pointlessly provocative at best.
    Cows are sacred to Hindus. I thought that was a well known fact?
    Yes, I vaguely knew that, but to be honest I don't spend a lot of time thinking about religion.
    I grew up knowing Christians and Muslims, so I know a bit more about those religions, but everything else is a bit of a vague blur to me.

    I'm interested to hear that mocking Hindus is racist when I've been assured by some that mocking Muslims is not.
    I do hope there isn't anyone on here guilty of such double standards.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Landale might want to recall the manifesto predated COVID-19 becoming a global pandemic. It's not unreasonable to reassess spending given the profound impact the disease has had.
  • RobD said:

    Labour have little choice but to back the deal and hang it round Shagger's neck like the albatross it is. As the alternative - no deal - would be at least a little worse than whatever deal he agrees, its a question of how badly we lose not whether we lose at all.

    If Labour voted against then it would have a Hard Time in the former red wall seats. However, voting for a deal that will sink whats left of industry in the red wall isn't going to be a vote winner either so portraying it as the "Boris Brexit" is critical. If as openly suggested by Nissan they shut their factory Labour need to show that the Tories willfully lied to everyone about an oven ready deal to make things better.

    Wasn't that suggestion predicated on No Deal?
    No. Predicated on a deal that makes its business non-viable. Stick 10% tariff on car bits and mega delays at the port doing all the paperwork and thats enough. At least according to their COO - what does he know?

    "Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54986195
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,934

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?

    I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Labour thinks any deal, however awful, is better than no deal, and given the timescale there is no chance to improve any deal that is presented. Secondly, if Labour opposes a deal it is absolutely certain that the Tories and their press will headline on 'Labour trying to stop Brexit again'. So it makes sense to me.
    It doesn`t make sense. Those who want to leave the EU no way want a crap deal with the EU. I sincerely hope that Johnson does not put such a deal before the house.
    Agreed.

    Good deal > No deal > Bad deal.

    The idea that any deal is better than no deal is nonsensical.
    You missed on step out and got another the wrong way around.

    Remain> Good deal> Bad deal> No deal.
    You'd accept any EU demand in order to get a deal?
  • NEW THREAD

  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    RobD said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?

    I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Labour thinks any deal, however awful, is better than no deal, and given the timescale there is no chance to improve any deal that is presented. Secondly, if Labour opposes a deal it is absolutely certain that the Tories and their press will headline on 'Labour trying to stop Brexit again'. So it makes sense to me.
    It doesn`t make sense. Those who want to leave the EU no way want a crap deal with the EU. I sincerely hope that Johnson does not put such a deal before the house.
    Agreed.

    Good deal > No deal > Bad deal.

    The idea that any deal is better than no deal is nonsensical.
    You missed on step out and got another the wrong way around.

    Remain> Good deal> Bad deal> No deal.
    You'd accept any EU demand in order to get a deal?
    Clearly. And the left are accused of not wanting what is best for our country v others. My word.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,934

    RobD said:

    Labour have little choice but to back the deal and hang it round Shagger's neck like the albatross it is. As the alternative - no deal - would be at least a little worse than whatever deal he agrees, its a question of how badly we lose not whether we lose at all.

    If Labour voted against then it would have a Hard Time in the former red wall seats. However, voting for a deal that will sink whats left of industry in the red wall isn't going to be a vote winner either so portraying it as the "Boris Brexit" is critical. If as openly suggested by Nissan they shut their factory Labour need to show that the Tories willfully lied to everyone about an oven ready deal to make things better.

    Wasn't that suggestion predicated on No Deal?
    No. Predicated on a deal that makes its business non-viable. Stick 10% tariff on car bits and mega delays at the port doing all the paperwork and thats enough. At least according to their COO - what does he know?

    "Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54986195
    Given we'd be negotiating a FTA it'd be odd to still have tariffs, don't you think?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    JACK_W said:

    Stocky said:

    I see Betfair haven't settled up on USA overnight.

    One day I shall wake up to some money in my BF account.

    Has anyone contacted BF over this? Their website is no help.
    Your great, great-grandchildren will think kindly of you as they tell their grandchildren that a distant ancestor has left them a small legacy that their grandchildren will reflect upon as a piece of social history.
    It`s like that fucking £1 premium bond that someone gave me when I was a new born back in the 60s. No winnings. Still worth £1 in theory.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    HYUFD said:
    If only he had something more important to do
This discussion has been closed.