preview.tinyurl.com/thefutureisbleak2017
This is 2017 - can anyone please explain why they they would vote for this throwback.
|
Well, we keep complaining that politicians are in thrall to their spin doctors and are terrified of saying anything controversial, so fair play to him for stating his views which he knows he is going to be slated for. People are entitled to hold the views they want.
But no, I would not vote for any party led by him directly because of those views, so I am pleased he has gone public with them so I know what he stands for should he take the Conservative leadership. I would take my chances on Jeremy's fantasy economics instead.
Not that it will come to that, because the Tories know full well that he represents electoral suicide.
|
Maybe not everyone
1) is the same as you
2) likes the 2000s
3) is easily impressed by (often self deprecating) appearances on HIGNFY and the like (cf Boris, Ken Livingstone etc)
4) and so on
As per post above, he won't get in anyway...
|
The guy seemed to be clear in separating religious beliefs from political reality.
Didn't seem to be suggesting that abortion, gay marriage or whatever is something to be decided anywhere other than parliament.
Tolerance works both ways
|
|
You may, or may not, agree with them, but he has principles, unlike the majority of MPs, who will say anything for a cheap PC point, or to curry favour with the "right-on" crowd..
|
You may, or may not, agree with them, but he has principles, unlike the majority
of MPs, who will say anything for a cheap PC point Daily Mail headline, or to curry favour
>> with the "right-on reactionary" crowd..
FTFY
|
>> You may, or may not, agree with them, but he has principles, unlike the
>> majority
>> of MPs, who will say anything for a cheap PC point Daily Mail headline,
>> or to curry favour
>> >> with the "right-on reactionary" crowd..
>>
>> FTFY
>>
The man is no fool, he knows his views are out of kilter with the majority of the electorate. But whether you agree with him or not (As I've said, I don't) he has put his principles before his popularity.
|
May God forgive me....
Roger is correct; if every politician had the principles, honesty and straightforwardness of this man then the world would be a far better place.
He is to be admired and complimented, not voted for mind you, but certainly admired and complimented.
And no catholic could possibly criticise him.
He has a history of saying what he thinks and doing what he says. I wouldn't vote for him, but I'm glad he is around.
|
This is from the Daily Mail, I rings true, but who knows?
Personally I cannot help but admire the bloke. And some of his views, behaviours and attitudes seem rather admirable.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3455622/Meet-exquisitely-eccentric-fogey-giving-Dave-barrels-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-proves-s-not-just-backbench-Bertie-Wooster.html
As for laws surrounding abortion, I'm damn sure I don't know the right answer. If I'm honest I oppose the laws because ensuring the woman has the choice is far more appropriate than actually having to decide if abortion is wrong under all circumstances.
Essentially I oppose the law restricting choice, but I am not at all sure I support abortion.
|
>>
>>
>> Essentially I oppose the law restricting choice, but I am not at all sure I
>> support abortion.
>>
I am in favour of it, but it raises an interesting question as to the point when a life is terminated. You could argue that the formation of a life begins with the ejeculation of the sperm, in which case contraception and masturbation would both be wrong (As my former firm the Catholic church has always maintained). And of course emergency contraception is even further up the chain.
I have no problem with Rees-Mogg provided he does not try to force his views on the rest of us.
|
He is a throwback. Rare, principled, eloquent.
More of the same please.
The danger is of course that we get conviction policies, though JRM seems to be too clever for that.
I think it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I share JRM's views on abortions. Its a faith thing. I truly believe in the sanctity of life, but I am not "churchy". I would never stop interfere with peoples choices though.
On the other-hand, I can't agree with him regarding homosexual relationships. Some of the best people I know are and if marriage makes them happy (and it has) then why not?
|
I've asked before I know, but I cannot remember, or find, the answer.
What are "conviction policies"?
|
|
Conviction politics is when one's views and actions are based on one's own conviction rather than a populist or radical movement or political party lines.
|
>> What are "conviction policies"?
>>
I believe Chris Huhne and John Stonehouse, amongst others, had them. ;-)
|
>> He is to be admired and complimented, not voted for mind you, but certainly admired
>> and complimented.
Cobblers. He is an MP just to massage his own feelings of self importance, to push his own agenda, with absolutely no passing glance to doing anything good for anyone else.
|
|
What is life is very simple. You have life if you can breath on your own. If you can't you are technically alive at someone else's whim. Doctor, Machine, and yes Mother.
|
|
So during a heart or lung transplant you are not, by your definition alive?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 6 Sep 17 at 22:26
|
>> So during a heart or lung transplant you are not, by your definition alive?
You are, but its someone else's responsibility, not your life.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 6 Sep 17 at 22:29
|
But if someone ended your life at that point, on purpose, with malice and intent, that would be murder? Or nothing much because its outside of your definition of life?
Since you said this was part of your definition of life [not *your* life, but 'life'], I think you might need to try a bit harder.
Should an evil man who stabs a pregnant woman in thr stomach be treated as worse or no different to someone who does the same to a non-pregnant woman? Is it one murder or two?
I have no idea what the answer is. And I hope I never have to decide.
|
>> I have no idea what the answer is. And I hope I never have to
>> decide.
Ask Rees Mogg, he is pretty quick to praise the sanctity of life, but as long as you live that life according to his terms. I bet he'd change his mind if there was a "sexuality" test at 26 weeks.
|
How about the airline of a diver? Very much analogous to the umbilical corsd of an unborn child.
The diver can't breath without it and is totally dependant on others to keep him alive
Would it be OK to turn off the air at a whim? Doesn't the diver have a say in the decision?
|
>> How about the airline of a diver? Very much analogous to the umbilical corsd of
>> an unborn child.
Not in the slightest, not even remotely. (see what i did there?) The diver is breathing on his own, its not a ventilator, nor is he connected to someone else's oxygen via their bloodstream.
try again.
|
Surely it's not the method of breathing that is important.but the total dependence of one life on another that is the critical issue.. you appear to believe that as an unborn child is totally dependant for it's mother for life then it has no right to life.
The analogy of someone undergoing an operation or a diver is therefore valid. Both,just like the child are dependant on others.
|
>> The analogy of someone undergoing an operation or a diver is therefore valid. Both,just like
>> the child are dependant on others.
No its not valid for the reasons already explained. Bending what you think i believe to fit your poor analogies wont change that.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 6 Sep 17 at 23:31
|
>What is life is very simple. You have life if you can breath on your own.
That is a crap definition of life.
|
The problem is of course that it is impossible to make a totally logical and moral case for taking the life of an unborn child up to a certain age. Society has agreed to it for social and practical reasons and deemed it to be acceptable and the law re abortion is where the majority of people want it to be.
|
>> The problem is of course that it is impossible to make a totally logical and
>> moral case for taking the life of an unborn child up to a certain age.
>> Society has agreed to it for social and practical reasons and deemed it to be
>> acceptable and the law re abortion is where the majority of people want it to
>> be.
>>
That's absolutely my view too.
But it has to be contrasted with the increasing medical ability to secure the viability of ever-older foetuses, bluring the cut-off point for "life".
Also there is surely an inherent contradiction between the urge to give an unborn baby rights, eg against harm from drugs or smoke, and the right at the same time given to others to terminate its existence for their own convenience.
Increasingly society demands rights for those unable to assert them for themselves - the handicapped, those in a coma, but also animals, trees, or even the wider environment. It's interesting that pro-abortion groups are wary of recognising foetus rights.
|
>> >What is life is very simple. You have life if you can breath on your
>> own.
>>
>> That is a crap definition of life.
You may not like it, it might scare you because it shows how vulnerable we are, but it's a perfectly valid definition
|
So, someone undergoing a lung transplant is not alive by your definition? Therefore they cannot be murdered?
Spheres.
|
>> So, someone undergoing a lung transplant is not alive by your definition? Therefore they cannot
>> be murdered?
at the point they have no lungs? it would be an interesting trial for sure with no sure outcome.
|
Absolutely. And he makes no bones about what his agenda is.
Its that straightforwardness I admire, not his policies or beliefs.
|
|
I'd vote for J R-M anyvday over JC, though I'd rather bring back DC.
|
>> I'd vote for J R-M anyvday over JC, though I'd rather bring back DC.
>>
Well, HC, HC, because I don't think it's going to happen.
(OTOH of course WC did get re-elected when an OAP)
|
>> I'd vote for J R-M anyvday over JC, though I'd rather bring back DC.
Really!!!
Ooodathortit!!
|
>> I'd vote for J R-M anyvday over JC,
Not really saying much, is it?
|
>>>Its that straightforwardness I admire, not his policies or beliefs.<<<
Whilst it is possible to admire for his 'straightforwardness' there is an underlying worry that if 'cornered' he would use his underlying intellect to justify his warped views.
Is it time to remove religious bias from all aspects of government or education?
I may have phrased that in way that will undoubtedly upset some people but it was a mild alternative when set against my original text!
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Thu 7 Sep 17 at 12:47
|
It was clear that he sees the difference between personal views and the parliamentary matters
to my mind the "underlying worry" is needless because it seems he is aware that his views are not supported by parliament and simply would not happen.
Are we really saying that anyone with religious beliefs of any kind, even atheist, is not acceptable as an MP? It seems to me that would exclude a lot of potentially good MPs
|
I reckon that many politicians will hold beliefs that are alien to most though as long as one of their beliefs is an unwavering belief in democracy then that's fine.
|
>> I reckon that many politicians will hold beliefs that are alien to most though as
>> long as one of their beliefs is an unwavering belief in democracy then that's fine.
>>
>>
Is there any reason to think that Rees-Mog does not have this level of belief in democracy?
|
>> Is there any reason to think that Rees-Mog does not have this level of belief
>> in democracy?
>>
No, no, no, not at all - that's my point, he may have views on, say, abortion that differ from the majority though his views on many things would align with the majority who can be reassured that any unpopular beliefs he may hold could not be imposed because we live in a democracy.
|
>> Whilst it is possible to admire for his 'straightforwardness' there is an underlying worry that
>> if 'cornered' he would use his underlying intellect to justify his warped views.
They might be warped to you or I but they are not warped to him and he has a right to air them. Of course he could justify his views, we can all do that on any subject we hold an opinion on. But so can those who hold the opposite view. We live in a democracy where opinions are allowed to differ.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 8 Sep 17 at 01:59
|
>>Of course he could justify his views<<
Whilst he could play the religion card I cannot accept that this an 'intellectual' or evidence based justification.
If you accept religious justification you then have to accept those views for any religion - many of which would be viewed as unacceptable in a western democracy.
|
>> Whilst he could play the religion card I cannot accept that this an 'intellectual' or
>> evidence based justification.
>>
>> If you accept religious justification you then have to accept those views for any religion
>> - many of which would be viewed as unacceptable in a western democracy.
You can put forward an argument to "Justify" anything - that does not mean everyone else has to accept it or that it should even be legal to actually do it. For example people are perfectly free to argue that the age of consent be lowered to 13. It would not happen because the vast majority of us are against it and holding that view would not entitle anyone to put his or her belief into practice because it is illegal, but you cannot take away somebodies right to argue their case just because it is unpopular or seems ridiculous.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 8 Sep 17 at 01:59
|
but you cannot take away somebodies right to argue
>> their case just because it is unpopular or seems ridiculous.
>>
I think we do it all the time. We ban various groups and by default their views, 'hate preachers' and the such like.
|
>> I think we do it all the time. We ban various groups and by default
>> their views, 'hate preachers' and the such like.
We ban them for inciting violence - a different thing altogether.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 8 Sep 17 at 01:59
|
> We ban them for inciting violence - a different thing altogether.
>>
I don't know, I see it as one of the same. There's not many that want to speak many views that are out there yet at the same time not illegal in their views . Of course there might be a few not many though.
|
>>There's not many that want to speak many views that are out there yet at the same time not illegal in their views
I may well agree with you. But since I have no idea what that sentence means, its difficult to be sure.
|
> I may well agree with you. But since I have no idea what that sentence
>> means, its difficult to be sure.
>>
It's a difficult one for sure, it's a fine line between illegal and outrageous.
|
JR-M is perfectly entitled to hold those views, according to his religion's teachings.
He is perfectly entitled to state them.
What he is NOT entitled to do is to let those, specifically religious views, affect his political input.
Personally I do not think he would, or could, as he made pretty clear in his interview, that there are free votes for this kind of thing by MPs. (That bit was mostly left out by the media!)
I happen to disagree with his religious tenets, as I do with the religiously inclined leanings of hard-line Ulster Protestants, whacky fundamentalist American cults and (dare I say it?) - the Islamist's ideas of a world-wide Caliphate, the subjection of women, and death to gays and apostates.
Yes, the Muslims can and do hold these views, to which they are similarly entitled, but they are not entitled to force them on any one, as a political policy.
Having said that, I find the idea of a real Conservative leading the Tory Party, to be very attractive!
|
>>What he is NOT entitled to do is to let those, specifically religious views, affect his political input.
Why not? I mean, as long as he is open about it. Surely if you are religious, and I am not, it will colour everything you do or say? Surely its only concealment which would make it bad.
If every politician were open, and sincere, and abided by their own beliefs, I cannot see how that could fail to improve our Government.
|
He has his views to which he is entitled. He is articulate and apparently honest in those views. Only time will tell. For the record I am not religious, but I do hold the view that the church and more importantly Christianity has provided social 'Glue' that has helped to keep matters together for many years. That glue is now failing.
I do not agree with abortion, but I do not support that view (as he does) where rape or incest is concerned.
I think we need more like him, but I also think that it is far too late. We are in a very broken place.
|
>>We are in a very broken place.
Never a truer word...........
|
More utter twonkery from J R-M
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/14/jacob-rees-mogg-increased-use-food-banks-rather-uplifting
Apparently reason for growth in use of Food Banks is that their existence was not previously publicised.
|
|
Anyone who can afford a £500 phone can afford to feed themselves.
|
>> Anyone who can afford a £500 phone can afford to feed themselves.
And your point is??
|
|
Some people need to sort out their priorities.
|
"Some people need to sort out their priorities."
Our friend's adopted son (fas?) used to visit the food bank; he also used to be down at the local Tesco at midnight when his benefit money was paid in so that he could obtain the latest x-box release.
|
Food banks have become fashionable that's why their usage appears to have increased.
Our generation would have been thoroughly ashamed of using them but now I hear some local people wear it like a badge of pride bragging about what they got free.
It is significant though that most of the food bank users locally are English.
Have we totally lost our sense of pride?
Pat
|
>> Food banks have become fashionable that's why their usage appears to have increased.
I'll reply to this nonsense tomorrow.
|
>>Food banks have become fashionable that's why their usage appears to have increased.
Oh Pat!
My ex, who is as hard as nails volunteers at a food bank, borne from her jam sandwich making experiences when working as a TA at a junior school.
She would assure you that the people who use it are not using it as a fashion accessory. They have nothing.
The users are people that fall through the gaps of the welfare state system.
Many are ill people that are too sick to work but the Govt. assessment says that can work, so they don't get any money from the state. The alternative is to beg.
When I have dropped her off (we are still good friends), you can see some people physically struggling to get to the food bank.
Recently, when picking her up there was an ambulance and I was worried so went in. One young mother, in threadbare clothes had passed out because she gave all she had to her kids and hadn't eaten for almost a week, surviving on tea.
No one wants to go to a food bank.
|
>>Food banks have become fashionable that's why their usage appears to have increased<<
The word you've missed in my post, and as it happens, Bromp has too, is 'appears'
I know only too well these people exist, and how they have to live. I deal with them too.
The point I was trying to make is that people are happy to admit to using food banks these days where my generation wouldn't have spoken about it to anyone.
It's a bit like the old National Assistance Board we had many years ago but no-one was brave enough to admit to having to visit them for help.
There are also some who use them who could, but won't, work as well.
They are the ones who are happy to brag about it.......and they do.
Pat
|
>> The word you've missed in my post, and as it happens, Bromp has too, is
>> 'appears'
Sorry Pat you're not wriggling off the hook that easily. Whatever 'appears' fashion has diddly squat to do with it.
It's true that there were always small charities providing food for the destitute but they tended to be 'soup kitchens' or projects distributing stuff to the street homeless. Foodbanks as we have them now are a creature of the last decade or so. The main provider is the Trussel Trust. In 2004 they ran two foodbanks. The number now is over 400.
You cannot, at least round here, just rock up at one, tell a sob story, and walk out with a week's supplies. You first need a voucher issued by either social services, the local council or Citizens Advice. Any of those organisations will take a history and expect to see some documentation, for example DWP letters about a sanction or explaining delay in benefit payments. People moving to Universal Credit are all caught with that. Others have longer term problems, for example with benefit cap which now bites people with as few as three children even if they're sick unless they qualify for highest level of Employment and Support Allowance - Housing Benefit reduced from £80 to £20.
Haywain's example covers another case in point. I believe his reference to FAS is foetal alcohol syndrome. One of the symptoms is severe learning difficulties and in inability to rationalise or plan/budget. Food voucher or the street? And no, the latter will not 'teach them a lesson.
Why should people, let down by the welfare state that's supposed to support them in time of difficulty be ashamed of seeking other help?
|
No sooner had I written post above when I found this article from a food bank user:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/15/jacob-rees-mogg-food-banks-tory
|
Got to wonder what JRM knows about poverty when he earned nearly £15k for 30 hours work in July 2017!
www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset#register
|
>>Sorry Pat you're not wriggling off the hook that easily. Whatever 'appears' fashion has diddly squat to do with it. <<
Bromp, you have missed the point.
I'm not 'on the hook' so I certainly don't have to wriggle off it to you or anyone else.
I have an opinion, the same as you.
There are other opinions, all are available and my days of 'wriggling off hooks' for other folk have gone I'm afraid.
I say it as I see it.
It's a discussion forum...other opinions are allowed.
I have explained your misunderstanding of my post and as always jumping to conclusions which suit your agenda, but that's as far as it goes.
Pat
|
>> It's a discussion forum...other opinions are allowed.
Of course they are. You're perfectly entitled to believe the world is flat if you want to.
Opinions and debate are though much more useful and interesting when argument is backed up by facts or research.
|
>> It is significant though that most of the food bank users locally are English.
Of course it's significant. People visiting food banks are, by and large, those caught in various forms of benefit SNAFU. Migrants do not come here to claim out of work benefits. Those in their home countries who have to live on such benefits tend not to migrate - migrants are healthy, motivated and, for most part, educated.
|
>>Of course it's significant.
Missed edit:
We do issue the odd voucher to migrants. Invariably though their issues are either Employment (unpaid wages) or Landlords. Migrants get shi**y end of the stick from both.
|
>>I think we need more like him, but I also think that it is far too late. We are in a very broken place.
Looking at his voting record, he certainly doesn't vote like a good christian / catholic!
www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset/votes
|
>>They are the ones who are happy to brag about it.......and they do.
I think and hope the "put up or shut up" attitudes of the past die out.
The people who thought that they were better than us built poor houses and relief systems to ease their consciences and they didn't encourage people to talk about it because that would be dissent.
|
>> The people who thought that they were better than us built poor houses and relief
>> systems to ease their consciences and they didn't encourage people to talk about it because
>> that would be dissent.
>>
>>
Do you give to charity, if so is it to ease your conscience? Alien though you may find it, there are some people out there who give just because they want to make a difference for someone else's life, no more and no less.
Looks to me like you are putting your own spin on history to suit some agenda.
|
>>> can anyone please explain why they they would vote for this throwback.
....well, he's obviously got enough traction to worry Boris ......
(and anyone who still thinks that the machinations of Brexit are being driven by the interests of the country, rather than the individual ambitions of the members of the Conservative party is (IMO of course) somewhat naive).
....but hey, the £350M per week is back on the table, so everything's OK.
|
Boris is a dick.
He himself admitted that 350 million was a work of fiction just after the result, and now he has decided to bring it back. Its discredited, everyone knows it, even those who bought the tosh first time round. Boris, it seems, thinks he can use a magicians trick again, after he has told everyone how its done.
|
The Conservative Party appears to be in its death throes. When the choice for leasder is between a discredited Theresa May, Boris Johnson doing his bumbling buffoon act and Rees Mogg doing his Bertie Wooster impressions surely this is the end.
|
....I think were in for at least another season of "I'm A Celebrity, Let Me Get You Out Of Here" (working title "My Brexit's Harder Than Yours")
;-)
|
There are two givens in UK politics.
1/ A Tory party in power always rips itself to bits with infighting and power struggles.
2/ The Labour Party will always screw up the economy.
|
>> There are two givens in UK politics.
>>
>> 1/ A Tory party in power always rips itself to bits with infighting and power
>> struggles.
>>
>> 2/ The Labour Party will always screw up the economy.
2/a The Labour Party will never rip itself to bits with infighting, back biting and power struggles.
|
Slightly aside, but James Dyson was being interviewed a lot recently and he commented about how a hard brexit will be good for the country.
Cannot help thinking that he is a little upset re the rules on vacuum cleaner wattages etc.
He is also a good one for keeping jobs here, after all, he didn't ship loads of jobs out to Malaysia and Singapore did he?
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 17 Sep 17 at 12:10
|
>>>Cannot help thinking that he is a little upset re the rules on vacuum cleaner wattages etc. <<<
Surely not! He is the champion of efficient lower power motors. Giving him a head start in the market place. Despite his gross overpriced fragile products, backed by remarkably effective marketing. ( A bit like Apple :).
|
Dyson, like JCB, is a private company. I suspect that both James Dyson and Anthony Bamford would be more circumspect vis a vis the EU if they had institutional shareholders to keep sweet.
The other big business noise on Leave side is Tim Martin of Weatherspoons. That is a Public Company but not one with significant fingers in export markets.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 17 Sep 17 at 13:08
|
>> What a hypocrite!
>>
looks to me that you, and/or the media are out to get this guy.
From the way I read it this is exactly the kind of separation of the job from his personal beliefs that he was talking about weeks ago.
The article says that the investment company has to make the appropriate decisions for its investors for business reasons and that his personal views or beliefs do not play any part in its decisions. Sounds pretty similar to a personal objection to abortion or whatever not being allowed to have any bearing on government decisions or policies in which he is involved.
Note I do not support the guy in any way, I just think he ought to be treated fairly, like anyone else.
|
Nope, when you make money out of it to live on, it is personal.
I would think that Jesus would have turned his table over if he were at the temple!
Last edited by: zippy on Mon 2 Oct 17 at 10:22
|
>> Nope, when you make money out of it to live on, it is personal.
>>
So if he is being paid as a government minister to follow party policy and vote for abortion that is hypocrisy in your view?
What about if he abstains?
What about if he is part of the government but does not speak on the issue and does not vote on the issue?
I really don't think he can win on this in some peoples' view
BTW, I love selective biblical examples when it suits people.
Last edited by: commerdriver on Mon 2 Oct 17 at 10:37
|
>> Mogg for PM!
>>
I suspect that the man has no idea of how ordinary people live and his policies would probably reflect that.
Expect soup kitchens and work-houses.
|
>> I suspect that the man has no idea of how ordinary people live and his
>> policies would probably reflect that.
Probably much as Corbyn, who has spent his life in some isolated Islington political bubble.
I have no idea what Mogg as PM would be like and I would not vote for him, but history shows that those who have done best for the well being of their fellow countrymen have come from the higher echelons of society at least as much as their more common brethren.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 3 Oct 17 at 01:34
|
>> Probably much as Corbyn, who has spent his life in some isolated Islington political >>bubble.
>>
Yes. He is just as unelectable IMHO.
|
|
Politically here are five countries making up the UK, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and inside the M25.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 2 Oct 17 at 20:23
|
>> Politically here are five countries making up the UK, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and
>> inside the M25.
Maybe four. England and Wales, Scotland, NI, and M25. I'm not sure that the Welsh self-identification is that much stronger than Yorkshire, or Cornwall, or Lancashire or Cumbria.
|
Inside the M25?
Try and tell people who live in Windsor or Woking or Reigate or Sevenoaks that they are not part of the London powerhouse ...
|
>> Politically here are five countries making up the UK, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and
>> inside the M25.
Whine Whine Whine, whinge whinge whinge, bitter twisted.
|
>> Whine Whine Whine, whinge whinge whinge, bitter twisted.
>>
But with services and a quality of life you can only dream of.
|
>> >> Whine Whine Whine, whinge whinge whinge, bitter twisted.
>> >>
>>
>> But with services and a quality of life you can only dream of.
>>
You mean with the services and quality of life that only we can pay for ...
|
>> You mean with the services and quality of life that only we can pay for
Correct, keep paying the taxes to support our lifestyle. :-)
No one in their right mind is going to vote fore independence.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 3 Oct 17 at 16:25
|
>>No one in their right mind is going to vote fore independence.
Or Trump. Or the Far Right. Or Farage. etc. etc. etc.
|
|
So why are you so obsessed with life in London? Its clear that living in the cold dark north has done your head in. Face it you are only living up there because you had to.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 3 Oct 17 at 17:35
|
I certainly get the impression that ON would be high tailing it out of the cold dank north should circumstances permit,
Give him credit fo putting a brave face oon it though. :-)
|
>> I certainly get the impression that ON would be high tailing it out of the
>> cold dank north should circumstances permit,
>>
You will not believe it but there is no way I would live in the south east. There are many reasons but they all boil down to quality of life. We spend about a week a year in london, it always re-enforces our choice of a home location. If London is so brilliant why do so many people have holiday homes or do the escape to the country move? I have a permanent holiday home. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 3 Oct 17 at 20:51
|
|
Ironically of course, the absolute best time to be in London is the weekend. Exactly when most people leave for elsewhere.
|
|
The people who think the south east is so wonderful are obviously not well travelled and have not lived abroad. As for denigrating any region they obviously know absolutely nothing about just confirms their ignorance of anywhere outside their own small area.
|
No-one who lives there thinks the south east is wonderful, no one on here has said it. But you clearly have an inferiority complex with your constant whining about a place you don't live in travel to or care about.
God its like listening to a gurgling plug hole
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 3 Oct 17 at 22:50
|
|
*basks in the smug glow of the Barnett Formula*
|
>> *basks in the smug glow of the Barnett Formula*
"Grins at Scottish Parliament being given tax raising powers"
|
>>"Grins at Scottish Parliament being given tax raising powers"
SG is keiching itself to use them though.
|
|
What about the South, South West, Wales, East, West, Midlands, East Anglia, North West, North East, etc.? Why the fixation on the south east?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 3 Oct 17 at 23:08
|
Because London/South East are the only parts of the UK with a higher GVA than Scotland?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Economy_by_region
|
|
I was referring to ON saying he/she would not live in the SE. Plenty of other bits of the UK.
|
>> What about the South, South West, Wales, East, West, Midlands, East Anglia, North West, North
>> East, etc.? Why the fixation on the south east?
>>
London is the area I was brought up in and have visited regularly. Although I have visited the area's you mention I do not know them well enough to comment on their quality of life.
|
>>So if he is being paid as a government minister to follow party policy and vote for abortion that is hypocrisy in your view?
Abortion is an open vote topic in parliament.
|
How can anyone really vote for this? - Robin O'Reliant
