Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[dynamark]

First topic message reminder :

I think its a done deal -no doubt he will be sat with the owner tonight
Villa should be a big big club remember going to cup semis there but probably need an owner willing to throw in some quick money .
No messing around in football these days from any of the owners.

[McLaren]

Navy

Would you mind sorting some of this out for me.  At first you say this;

be_the_ball

The chromosomes you are born with are a biological fact, and so you could just about say your sex is a biological fact but gender is influenced by the society you are raised in.

Don't. be. daft. Gender is a biological term. It's fact, relating to phenotypic expression of sexual genotype.

But then go on to accept that this isn't the case;

humans is they worry too much about gender, and there's too much historical/societal stereotyping and prejudice.

Where you seem to be accepting that gender has a large environmental component. Maybe you are just conflating sex and gender, I don't know, but some clarity would be good.

Did I mention normal/abnormal? I don't think so. If people want to use the term 'cis-gender', I won't stop them, but I will laugh at them. Seriously, it's long since past the time when the assumption is that everyone not of some minority is inherently against them.

Is it?

You have to ask? No wonder this sort of thing gets blowback.

navy, are your powers of perception f*ed?



And on this

Since I'm in a fabulous mood today, is it me, or is there more being made of the death of the white, female, Jodie Chesney, than of the myriad young, black men who've been stabbed to death before her?

Probably, it's like when a "cute" white girl goes missing and the media go bananas over it.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Would you mind sorting some of this out for me.  At first you say this;

be_the_ball

The chromosomes you are born with are a biological fact, and so you could just about say your sex is a biological fact but gender is influenced by the society you are raised in.

Don't. be. daft. Gender is a biological term. It's fact, relating to phenotypic expression of sexual genotype.

But then go on to accept that this isn't the case;

humans is they worry too much about gender, and there's too much historical/societal stereotyping and prejudice.

Where you seem to be accepting that gender has a large environmental component. Maybe you are just conflating sex and gender, I don't know, but some clarity would be good.

No, I don't, but you go on and misinterpret if you like. I'm suggesting that our perceptions of it, and what it really means, are overly bothered about it. I'm not saying environment (unless you're talking exposure to xenobiotics that might disrupt expression of sexual phenotype) has anything to do with it really.

Did I mention normal/abnormal? I don't think so. If people want to use the term 'cis-gender', I won't stop them, but I will laugh at them. Seriously, it's long since past the time when the assumption is that everyone not of some minority is inherently against them.

Is it?

You have to ask? No wonder this sort of thing gets blowback.

navy, are your powers of perception f*ed?

No, they aren't. If you don't get the point, I'm not surprised; you have form.

And on this

Since I'm in a fabulous mood today, is it me, or is there more being made of the death of the white, female, Jodie Chesney, than of the myriad young, black men who've been stabbed to death before her?

Probably, it's like when a "cute" white girl goes missing and the media go bananas over it.

At least we can probably agree on that.

[navyblueshorts]

If you are trans then a non trans is cis. Its just the term used, usually by trans people. I don't get why its remotely laughable or stupid.

If you're trans, you're something different from what you were, and you want to be viewed that way. Stop banging on about it - I don't care. Man transitions to be a woman, tell people you're a woman. You want to be a woman? Tell people that's what you are. And vice versa. I don't give a damn if you're 'trans'.

Enough of this nonsense anyway...

[McLaren]

Navy

Would you mind sorting some of this out for me.  At first you say this;

be_the_ball

The chromosomes you are born with are a biological fact, and so you could just about say your sex is a biological fact but gender is influenced by the society you are raised in.

Don't. be. daft. Gender is a biological term. It's fact, relating to phenotypic expression of sexual genotype.

But then go on to accept that this isn't the case;

humans is they worry too much about gender, and there's too much historical/societal stereotyping and prejudice.

Where you seem to be accepting that gender has a large environmental component. Maybe you are just conflating sex and gender, I don't know, but some clarity would be good.

No, I don't, but you go on and misinterpret if you like. I'm suggesting that our perceptions of it, and what it really means, are overly bothered about it. I'm not saying environment (unless you're talking exposure to xenobiotics that might disrupt expression of sexual phenotype) has anything to do with it really.

So you have switched back to talking about sex.

Ok, lets make this easier. Would you agree with the following statement.

Biological sex is set at conception (chromosomes, sexual organs) and gender is the description used by humans to capture the different social roles and characteristics that are associated with biological males or females.

[super_realist]

Since I'm in a fabulous mood today, is it me, or is there more being made of the death of the white, female, Jodie Chesney, than of the myriad young, black men who've been stabbed to death before her?

Yes, it's just you. The deaths of young black men are reported on a daily basis to the point where most are bored and immune to hearing about them. I don't even read the stories now because they're all the same and nothing new ever comes out of such stories, just the usual suspects blaming the current government for it as usual.

[super_realist]

Navy

Would you mind sorting some of this out for me.  At first you say this;

be_the_ball

The chromosomes you are born with are a biological fact, and so you could just about say your sex is a biological fact but gender is influenced by the society you are raised in.

Don't. be. daft. Gender is a biological term. It's fact, relating to phenotypic expression of sexual genotype.

But then go on to accept that this isn't the case;

humans is they worry too much about gender, and there's too much historical/societal stereotyping and prejudice.

Where you seem to be accepting that gender has a large environmental component. Maybe you are just conflating sex and gender, I don't know, but some clarity would be good.

No, I don't, but you go on and misinterpret if you like. I'm suggesting that our perceptions of it, and what it really means, are overly bothered about it. I'm not saying environment (unless you're talking exposure to xenobiotics that might disrupt expression of sexual phenotype) has anything to do with it really.

So you have switched back to talking about sex.

Ok, lets make this easier.  Would you agree with the following statement.

Biological sex is set at conception (chromosomes, sexual organs) and gender is the description used by humans to capture the different social roles and characteristics that are associated with biological males or females.

Looks like Mac has been on Google again. Why don't you stick to what you know about Mac instead of trying to pretend you have some sort of knowledge about this? I'm not sure what that would be, perhaps Lothian Buses but it's laughable to pretend you are some sort of biologist. I suggest you know as much about that as you do about golf architecture, i.e. just a load of blurb you read in a book but can't actually make sense of.

[pedro]

Why don't you stick to what you know about Mac instead of trying to pretend you have some sort of knowledge about this? I'm not sure what that would be, perhaps Lothian Buses

Don’t bet on it super. They’re also hybrids.

[super_realist]

Why don't you stick to what you know about Mac instead of trying to pretend you have some sort of knowledge about this? I'm not sure what that would be, perhaps Lothian Buses

Don’t bet on it super. They’re also hybrids.

Very good Pedro.

[Diggers]

Navy

Would you mind sorting some of this out for me.  At first you say this;

be_the_ball

The chromosomes you are born with are a biological fact, and so you could just about say your sex is a biological fact but gender is influenced by the society you are raised in.

Don't. be. daft. Gender is a biological term. It's fact, relating to phenotypic expression of sexual genotype.

But then go on to accept that this isn't the case;

humans is they worry too much about gender, and there's too much historical/societal stereotyping and prejudice.

Where you seem to be accepting that gender has a large environmental component. Maybe you are just conflating sex and gender, I don't know, but some clarity would be good.

No, I don't, but you go on and misinterpret if you like. I'm suggesting that our perceptions of it, and what it really means, are overly bothered about it. I'm not saying environment (unless you're talking exposure to xenobiotics that might disrupt expression of sexual phenotype) has anything to do with it really.

So you have switched back to talking about sex.

Ok, lets make this easier.  Would you agree with the following statement.

Biological sex is set at conception (chromosomes, sexual organs) and gender is the description used by humans to capture the different social roles and characteristics that are associated with biological males or females.

Looks like Mac has been on Google again. Why don't you stick to what you know about Mac instead of trying to pretend you have some sort of knowledge about this? I'm not sure what that would be, perhaps Lothian Buses but it's laughable to pretend you are some sort of biologist. I suggest you know as much about that as you do about golf architecture, i.e. just a load of blurb you read in a book but can't actually make sense of.

A lack of any knowledge never stops you joining in football conversations.

[navyblueshorts]

Since I'm in a fabulous mood today, is it me, or is there more being made of the death of the white, female, Jodie Chesney, than of the myriad young, black men who've been stabbed to death before her?

Yes, it's just you. The deaths of young black men are reported on a daily basis to the point where most are bored and immune to hearing about them. I don't even read the stories now because they're all the same and nothing new ever comes out of such stories, just the usual suspects blaming the current government for it as usual.

Cheers. I feel better now you've confirmed that . For a minute I thought there might have been a bit of (un)conscious bias in the reporting of this sort of story.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Would you mind sorting some of this out for me.  At first you say this;

be_the_ball

The chromosomes you are born with are a biological fact, and so you could just about say your sex is a biological fact but gender is influenced by the society you are raised in.

Don't. be. daft. Gender is a biological term. It's fact, relating to phenotypic expression of sexual genotype.

But then go on to accept that this isn't the case;

humans is they worry too much about gender, and there's too much historical/societal stereotyping and prejudice.

Where you seem to be accepting that gender has a large environmental component. Maybe you are just conflating sex and gender, I don't know, but some clarity would be good.

No, I don't, but you go on and misinterpret if you like. I'm suggesting that our perceptions of it, and what it really means, are overly bothered about it. I'm not saying environment (unless you're talking exposure to xenobiotics that might disrupt expression of sexual phenotype) has anything to do with it really.

So you have switched back to talking about sex.

Ok, lets make this easier.  Would you agree with the following statement.

Biological sex is set at conception (chromosomes, sexual organs) and gender is the description used by humans to capture the different social roles and characteristics that are associated with biological males or females.

No, Mac. I wouldn't. Moving on...

[Diggers]

Since I'm in a fabulous mood today, is it me, or is there more being made of the death of the white, female, Jodie Chesney, than of the myriad young, black men who've been stabbed to death before her?

Yes, it's just you. The deaths of young black men are reported on a daily basis to the point where most are bored and immune to hearing about them. I don't even read the stories now because they're all the same and nothing new ever comes out of such stories, just the usual suspects blaming the current government for it as usual.

Cheers. I feel better now you've confirmed that . For a minute I thought there might have been a bit of (un)conscious bias in the reporting of this sort of story.

Are you serious? There is a massive bias, probably both conscious and unconscious and designed to sell papers or get viewers.
Narrative: black people who get stabbed, part of the problem. White person, poor victim.

[navyblueshorts]

Since I'm in a fabulous mood today, is it me, or is there more being made of the death of the white, female, Jodie Chesney, than of the myriad young, black men who've been stabbed to death before her?

Yes, it's just you. The deaths of young black men are reported on a daily basis to the point where most are bored and immune to hearing about them. I don't even read the stories now because they're all the same and nothing new ever comes out of such stories, just the usual suspects blaming the current government for it as usual.

Cheers. I feel better now you've confirmed that . For a minute I thought there might have been a bit of (un)conscious bias in the reporting of this sort of story.

Are you serious? There is a massive bias, probably both conscious and unconscious and designed to sell papers or get viewers.
Narrative: black people who get stabbed, part of the problem. White person, poor victim.

Yes, I'm serious. I think (hope) you mistook me for Super. Either that or you missed the sarcasm in my response to him.

[JAS]

Since I'm in a fabulous mood today, is it me, or is there more being made of the death of the white, female, Jodie Chesney, than of the myriad young, black men who've been stabbed to death before her?

Yes, it's just you. The deaths of young black men are reported on a daily basis to the point where most are bored and immune to hearing about them. I don't even read the stories now because they're all the same and nothing new ever comes out of such stories, just the usual suspects blaming the current government for it as usual.

Cheers. I feel better now you've confirmed that . For a minute I thought there might have been a bit of (un)conscious bias in the reporting of this sort of story.

Are you serious? There is a massive bias, probably both conscious and unconscious and designed to sell papers or get viewers.
Narrative: black people who get stabbed, part of the problem. White person, poor victim.

Taking a similar but slightly different take on Navy’s original (because I’m in an equally fabulous mood), is it just me or is a lot more being made of a millionaire footballer being assaulted by a drunken yob than the hundreds of police, firefighters and NHS staff that get assaulted by drunken yobs on a semi regular basis.
Btw it was such a poor strike on Grealish it wasn’t even a red card (actually I suppose there was intent there) He did go down like such a sack of spuds though so I’d have booked him for diving. Meanwhile Tavernier at the Rangers Hibs game...I’m surprised he wasn’t booked for showing the intent to retaliate (such is the bonkersness of Scottish Football officialdom).

[navyblueshorts]

Good point JAS. Shows how warped things are. Critically though, who thinks Villa is a big enough team to warrant the coverage? Honestly...

[McLaren]

Navy

I am pretty sure Diggers was addressing supers post where he confirmed he is "bored" of hearing about black peoples deaths.


I know you said move on, but I am just wondering if you see sex and gender as two different things? If not, what term or idea would you use to describe the cultural influence on how the two biological genders are viewed and treated?

[navyblueshorts]

...I know you said move on, but I am just wondering if you see sex and gender as two different things?  If not, what term or idea would you use to describe the cultural influence on how the two biological genders are viewed and treated?

Thought I'd be a radical and consult a dictionary:

gender
noun

1 Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female: a condition that affects people of both genders | someone of the opposite gender | everyone always asks which gender I identify as.
• members of a particular gender considered as a group: social interaction between the genders | encouraging women and girls to join fields traditionally dominated by the male gender.
• [mass noun] the fact or condition of belonging to or identifying with a particular gender: video ads will target users based only on age and gender | traditional concepts of gender | I'm a strong believer that gender is fluid.
2 Grammar (in languages such as Latin, French, and German) each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections which they have and which they require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.
• [mass noun] the property (in nouns and related words) of belonging to a grammatical gender: determiners and adjectives usually agree with the noun in gender and number.

USAGE
The word gender has been used since the 14th century as a grammatical term, referring to classes of noun designated as masculine, feminine, or neuter in some languages. The sense denoting biological sex has also been used since the 14th century, but this did not become common until the mid 20th century. Although the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they have slightly different connotations; sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences and sometimes encompasses a broader range of identities than the binary of male and female.

Fair play, Mac. (Re-)Learn something every day. I would, and do, take 'gender' as a term pretty much equivalent to 'sex', when applied to biology. Wonder how its definition/usage has altered in dictionaries over the last few decades? I suspect quite a bit. Guess I need to get 'woke'.

Not sure I'd use 'gender' to describe cultural influence on how an individual chooses to describe their gender. In the way they're viewed, I suggest it all comes down to us being tribal, 'otherness' and not conforming to societal perception of 'normal'. Like so much, it's all about fitting in and being one of the majority. If you don't/aren't, well, you get the disparaging comments/treatment don't you? Maybe we'll grow up at some point...

[pedro]

Schalke 07.

[Diggers]

I’d like to publicly thank the ERG and the DUP for keeping my dream of no Brexit alive.

[dynamark]

Digs very good but its the law we leave on 29th March (this year) But you have got around 2/3 of MPs on your team wherein lies the problem.Their mistake was asking us lot what we wanted it used to be called democracy

[Be_the_ball]

The problem all along has been agreement within the HoC. They can't even get both branches of the Tories to agree. Really it's a power struggle within the Tories and the EU fairly irrelevant. Time for the hardliners to lead the UK into a no deal. Dyna & co were promised the earth moon and stars, time for the HoC Brexiteers to step up and lead now. It has to be a No Deal now as anything else (political) Brexiteers will be crying about it for decades. The EU has bigger fish to fry with the upcoming European elections. The world has moved on.

[Davie]

Digs very good but its the law we leave on 29th March (this year) But you have got around 2/3 of MPs on your team wherein lies the problem.Their mistake was asking us lot what we wanted it used to be called democracy

Which law is that?

[Diggers]

Why anyone would think no deal moves us on is beyond me. Probably appeases about 25% of the population and is merely the start of a host of negotiations, which we’d be on the wrong side of.
Personally I’d go 12-24 month delay, red lines removed, some kind of Norway style deal. That for me is the closest we get to a compromise from everyone.

[Be_the_ball]

Personally I don't think the HoC will ever agree though. It's pointless even talking to the EU now. They've had 2 and a half years to agree among themselves but still no agreement in the HoC. That could go on for a decade.

[JAS]

What a bloody shambles...We’re doomed!!!
Well we’re not really we will get through it, it’s just how.
We’re led to believe MPs will now vote to take no deal off the table then subsequently vote to extend article 50. All very well and good but the first problem then comes with how long should it be extended? 2-3 months (up until Euro election time) basically just moves the cliff edge, the EU won’t budge any further so we’d basically get a no deal or what we’ve just rejected. If we reckon we need more than 2-3 months then the EU are likely to slam the door shut unless that extra time is either for a GE or another referendum.... So imho the length of the Article 50 extension will determine where we’re headed with the whole shambles. 2-3 months and we’re definitely leaving, 6-12 months we could be looking at remaining or a Corbyn Govt having to clear up the mess.

[Diggers]

Personally I don't think the HoC will ever agree though. It's pointless even talking to the EU now. They've had 2 and a half years to agree among themselves but still no agreement in the HoC. That could go on for a decade.

The thinking is, if there is a consensus for anything in the HOC, it's a Norway style deal. Labour for the most part will go for it, as will the softer Brexiteer Tories who don't want their party to implode. It also removes the Ireland issue. This should have been May's strategy from the start, but no, she had her red lines, even though it was obvious her plan was doomed.

[Roller_Coaster]

What a bloody shambles...We’re doomed!!!
Well we’re not really we will get through it, it’s just how.
We’re led to believe MPs will now vote to take no deal off the table then subsequently vote to extend article 50. All very well and good but the first problem then comes with how long should it be extended? 2-3 months (up until Euro election time) basically just moves the cliff edge, the EU won’t budge any further so we’d basically get a no deal or what we’ve just rejected. If we reckon we need more than 2-3 months then the EU are likely to slam the door shut unless that extra time is either for a GE or another referendum.... So imho the length of the Article 50 extension will determine where we’re headed with the whole shambles. 2-3 months and we’re definitely leaving, 6-12 months we could be looking at remaining or a Corbyn Govt having to clear up the mess.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Corbyn couldn't clear up his own nose after a particularly hearty sneeze (sorry - best put the suffix "in my opinion" on there).

We might end up there (a Corbyn led government), but by "clearing up the mess" the only mental picture I have is of many more, bigger messes camouflaging the exact same mess that would remain (no pun intended) in exactly the same state.

There's a pretty irreparable slice through both main parties between pro and anti EU and at the minute I can only see it resulting in 4 parties where there were 2 and no government of majority in the foreseeable future.

[Diggers]

What a bloody shambles...We’re doomed!!!
Well we’re not really we will get through it, it’s just how.
We’re led to believe MPs will now vote to take no deal off the table then subsequently vote to extend article 50. All very well and good but the first problem then comes with how long should it be extended? 2-3 months (up until Euro election time) basically just moves the cliff edge, the EU won’t budge any further so we’d basically get a no deal or what we’ve just rejected. If we reckon we need more than 2-3 months then the EU are likely to slam the door shut unless that extra time is either for a GE or another referendum.... So imho the length of the Article 50 extension will determine where we’re headed with the whole shambles. 2-3 months and we’re definitely leaving, 6-12 months we could be looking at remaining or a Corbyn Govt having to clear up the mess.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Corbyn couldn't clear up his own nose after a particularly hearty sneeze (sorry - best put the suffix "in my opinion" on there).

We might end up there (a Corbyn led government), but by "clearing up the mess" the only mental picture I have is of many more, bigger messes camouflaging the exact same mess that would remain (no pun intended) in exactly the same state.

There's a pretty irreparable slice through both main parties between pro and anti EU and at the minute I can only see it resulting in 4 parties where there were 2 and no government of majority in the foreseeable future.

Well that's an opinion. But when you look at Corbyn's position on Europe, which since the referendum has been customs union and single market membership, then, and I say again, not just me but many political commentators, say that is the one deal that has a chance of getting through Parliament, it is most likely to have the numbers.
I'd have thought there would be something to take away from that myself.

[navyblueshorts]

Digs very good but its the law we leave on 29th March (this year) But you have got around 2/3 of MPs on your team wherein lies the problem.Their mistake was asking us lot what we wanted it used to be called democracy

Which law is that?

The Statute that went through both Houses after A50 was triggered. If we don't ask (and get) an A50 extension, or approve a deal, by March 29th, we're out with no deal.

[navyblueshorts]

What a bloody shambles...We’re doomed!!!
Well we’re not really we will get through it, it’s just how.
We’re led to believe MPs will now vote to take no deal off the table then subsequently vote to extend article 50. All very well and good but the first problem then comes with how long should it be extended? 2-3 months (up until Euro election time) basically just moves the cliff edge, the EU won’t budge any further so we’d basically get a no deal or what we’ve just rejected. If we reckon we need more than 2-3 months then the EU are likely to slam the door shut unless that extra time is either for a GE or another referendum.... So imho the length of the Article 50 extension will determine where we’re headed with the whole shambles. 2-3 months and we’re definitely leaving, 6-12 months we could be looking at remaining or a Corbyn Govt having to clear up the mess.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Corbyn couldn't clear up his own nose after a particularly hearty sneeze (sorry - best put the suffix "in my opinion" on there).

We might end up there (a Corbyn led government), but by "clearing up the mess" the only mental picture I have is of many more, bigger messes camouflaging the exact same mess that would remain (no pun intended) in exactly the same state.

There's a pretty irreparable slice through both main parties between pro and anti EU and at the minute I can only see it resulting in 4 parties where there were 2 and no government of majority in the foreseeable future.

Well that's an opinion. But when you look at Corbyn's position on Europe, which since the referendum has been customs union and single market membership, then, and I say again, not just me but many political commentators, say that is the one deal that has a chance of getting through Parliament, it is most likely to have the numbers.
I'd have thought there would be something to take away from that myself.

Corbyn's position is he wants out. Always has been. The position of the majority of his party isn't in agreement with the Dear Leader on that. You're right, I think, on the fact that Labour would table a softer Brexit deal and would probably get more Commons support. Enough to get agreement? Who knows these days. If Corbyn were leader of a Government following a GE in the very near future, the interesting thing would be whether he'd have the balls to actually cancel A50 and leaving, full stop. That would be better than some half-arsed 'Norway' kind of arrangement.

There's a pretty irreparable slice through both main parties between pro and anti EU and at the minute I can only see it resulting in 4 parties where there were 2 and no government of majority in the foreseeable future.

The dissolution of the main parties into more sensible entities would be a good thing, but would only work under some form of PR voting system. That ain't happening, which is a shame because I (and I suspect many millions of others) are fed up to the back teeth of being, essentially, disenfranchised. **** the lot of them.

[JAS]

What a bloody shambles...We’re doomed!!!
Well we’re not really we will get through it, it’s just how.
We’re led to believe MPs will now vote to take no deal off the table then subsequently vote to extend article 50. All very well and good but the first problem then comes with how long should it be extended? 2-3 months (up until Euro election time) basically just moves the cliff edge, the EU won’t budge any further so we’d basically get a no deal or what we’ve just rejected. If we reckon we need more than 2-3 months then the EU are likely to slam the door shut unless that extra time is either for a GE or another referendum.... So imho the length of the Article 50 extension will determine where we’re headed with the whole shambles. 2-3 months and we’re definitely leaving, 6-12 months we could be looking at remaining or a Corbyn Govt having to clear up the mess.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Corbyn couldn't clear up his own nose after a particularly hearty sneeze (sorry - best put the suffix "in my opinion" on there).

We might end up there (a Corbyn led government), but by "clearing up the mess" the only mental picture I have is of many more, bigger messes camouflaging the exact same mess that would remain (no pun intended) in exactly the same state.

There's a pretty irreparable slice through both main parties between pro and anti EU and at the minute I can only see it resulting in 4 parties where there were 2 and no government of majority in the foreseeable future.

After the Daily Mail/average right wing rag narrative on Corbyns perceived qualities (or not), the last 2 paragraphs are a pretty reasonable assessment of what will likely happen.
Personally I’m a bit torn, on the one hand I think the country currently needs a periodic dose of Attlee like Socialism to heal the country from nearly 4 decades of neo-liberal trickle down, no such thing as society, greeed is good, unemployment is a price worth paying economic management which has basically created the divisions that are being played out on the Brexit field. That ethos should have died with the crash of 2008 but such is the power of greed it has lurched on, spawning rampant nationalism, hate, resentment and intolerance.
On the other hand Corbyn being elected now and not being able to galvanise the country would probably kill off Democratic Socialism for a generation. If Corbyn gets in in the relatively near future he WILL get the blame for all of it. But to continue to hide whilst the other lot self destruct and ruin the country ain’t exactly a great position either.

[Diggers]

What a bloody shambles...We’re doomed!!!
Well we’re not really we will get through it, it’s just how.
We’re led to believe MPs will now vote to take no deal off the table then subsequently vote to extend article 50. All very well and good but the first problem then comes with how long should it be extended? 2-3 months (up until Euro election time) basically just moves the cliff edge, the EU won’t budge any further so we’d basically get a no deal or what we’ve just rejected. If we reckon we need more than 2-3 months then the EU are likely to slam the door shut unless that extra time is either for a GE or another referendum.... So imho the length of the Article 50 extension will determine where we’re headed with the whole shambles. 2-3 months and we’re definitely leaving, 6-12 months we could be looking at remaining or a Corbyn Govt having to clear up the mess.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Corbyn couldn't clear up his own nose after a particularly hearty sneeze (sorry - best put the suffix "in my opinion" on there).

We might end up there (a Corbyn led government), but by "clearing up the mess" the only mental picture I have is of many more, bigger messes camouflaging the exact same mess that would remain (no pun intended) in exactly the same state.

There's a pretty irreparable slice through both main parties between pro and anti EU and at the minute I can only see it resulting in 4 parties where there were 2 and no government of majority in the foreseeable future.

Well that's an opinion. But when you look at Corbyn's position on Europe, which since the referendum has been customs union and single market membership, then, and I say again, not just me but many political commentators, say that is the one deal that has a chance of getting through Parliament, it is most likely to have the numbers.
I'd have thought there would be something to take away from that myself.

Corbyn's position is he wants out. Always has been. The position of the majority of his party isn't in agreement with the Dear Leader on that. You're right, I think, on the fact that Labour would table a softer Brexit deal and would probably get more Commons support. Enough to get agreement? Who knows these days. If Corbyn were leader of a Government following a GE in the very near future, the interesting thing would be whether he'd have the balls to actually cancel A50 and leaving, full stop. That would be better than some half-arsed 'Norway' kind of arrangement.

There's a pretty irreparable slice through both main parties between pro and anti EU and at the minute I can only see it resulting in 4 parties where there were 2 and no government of majority in the foreseeable future.

The dissolution of the main parties into more sensible entities would be a good thing, but would only work under some form of PR voting system. That ain't happening, which is a shame because I (and I suspect many millions of others) are fed up to the back teeth of being, essentially, disenfranchised. **** the lot of them.

In terms of Brexit getting through Parliament you don't need the whole Labour movement on board (not that everyone is asking for another referendum, the TU's for a start are also pro leave in many cases).
What you need is the PLP to get behind a softer Brexit and all the signs are this can happen, you can pay lip service to fulfilling your manifesto promise and upholding democracy, whilst actually for the most part carrying on as is...though of course with a worse "deal" than we have already.
Be interesting to see how the vote goes today, hopefully if no deal gets absolutely smashed the penny might drop for Jo Public that it's a really, really bad idea.
PR, great idea, I just don't think it can work in the UK. We only seem able to function wit ha majority govt in situ, as the last 2 years clearly demonstrates.
It is a mess, but it's interesting. I know we are all meant to be bored, I'm not, I think it's great.

[dynamark]

Navys on it- its on the statute book.
I can see this going one of 2 ways either out on 29th or a major rejig in british politics if the HOC bottle it due to their 2/3 remain situation.
Good debate guys I'm not against the EU Ive done OK on the inside of the tent but not afraid of the outside.We have good relations with lots of nations other than EU all over the world its just a fear of the unknown

[Roller_Coaster]

I can honestly see our  (sorry, technically your) elected representatives:

Voting against the deal on the table (I know that's a past tenser now - again)
Voting against a "no deal" exit
Voting against an extension to Art 50
Refusing to remain.

I would no longer be surprised if the only way forward was a massive game of Rock, Paper, Scissors in the house.

If only they could all agree on whether to go "on three" or "three then go".

But we all know they couldn't.

[Diggers]

I can honestly see our  (sorry, technically your) elected representatives:

Voting against the deal on the table (I know that's a past tenser now - again)
Voting against a "no deal" exit
Voting against an extension to Art 50
Refusing to remain.

I would no longer be surprised if the only way forward was a massive game of Rock, Paper, Scissors in the house.

If only they could all agree on whether to go "on three" or "three then go".

But we all know they couldn't.

Why would you expect them to agree easily? Everyone tells them to get on with it, agree something, but the fly in the ointment is we are all only happy it the thing that's agreed is what we want.
The backstop is a huge issue for many reasons, and I don't give a monkeys what anyone says, I followed the referendum debate closely and it barely got a mention. Logically, looking back it should have been flagged immediately, the only reason the Good Friday Agreement worked is because Ireland and the UK are EU member states.

[navyblueshorts]

...PR, great idea, I just don't think it can work in the UK. We only seem able to function wit ha majority govt in situ, as the last 2 years clearly demonstrates...

This is the problem with this Country and any form of PR. Of course it can work. I mean, we did all right in WWII with what was effectively a PR/coalition sort of Government. Most of mainland Europe does fine with this form of arrangement. It's about agreeing compromises. Maybe that's a problem because we're so immature. The extremes of any debate are rarely the best real-world solution to anything.

I loathe UKIP's ideals, but who in the World thinks it's correct that they poll ~4.5m votes in the 2015 GE for 1 MP, while the SNP poll ~1.7m for >30 MPs?? Our political system isn't fit for 21st Century purpose and I'm fed up with it.

[navyblueshorts]

I can honestly see our  (sorry, technically your) elected representatives:

Voting against the deal on the table (I know that's a past tenser now - again)
Voting against a "no deal" exit
Voting against an extension to Art 50
Refusing to remain.

I would no longer be surprised if the only way forward was a massive game of Rock, Paper, Scissors in the house.

If only they could all agree on whether to go "on three" or "three then go".

But we all know they couldn't.

I've got a better idea. Put them in a closed Wembley stadium with a shed load of middle age meleé weapons. Last man/woman standing decides. Kind of Hunger Games, only without Jennifer Lawrence. So better in some senses, but no/little glamour

[Diggers]

Navys on it- its on the statute book.
I can see this going one of 2 ways either out on 29th or a major rejig in british politics if the HOC bottle it due to their 2/3 remain situation.
Good debate guys I'm not against the EU Ive done OK on the inside of the tent but not afraid of the outside.We have good relations with lots of nations other than EU all over the world its just a fear of the unknown

It's not a fear of the unknown, it's using economic prediction and common sense to realise that it's just a really bad plan for very little gain. I'm not scared of no deal, I just think its a terrible idea and I haven't read a single thing that makes me think otherwise. And (and I really don't include you in this Dyna, you seem like a sound guy) more no deal Brexiteers seem to be the kind of red necked tools who make me ashamed to be British.

[navyblueshorts]

...The backstop is a huge issue for many reasons, and I don't give a monkeys what anyone says, I followed the referendum debate closely and it barely got a mention. Logically, looking back it should have been flagged immediately, the only reason the Good Friday Agreement worked is because Ireland and the UK are EU member states.

Yep. Want to see how important it is? Look at the recent explosive devices found and attributed to the IRA. Look at that explosion in in Derry this January. Think it's coincidence they happened when they have after years of silence? Hmm...

[JAS]

...PR, great idea, I just don't think it can work in the UK. We only seem able to function wit ha majority govt in situ, as the last 2 years clearly demonstrates...

This is the problem with this Country and any form of PR. Of course it can work. I mean, we did all right in WWII with what was effectively a PR/coalition sort of Government. Most of mainland Europe does fine with this form of arrangement. It's about agreeing compromises. Maybe that's a problem because we're so immature. The extremes of any debate are rarely the best real-world solution to anything.

I loathe UKIP's ideals, but who in the World thinks it's correct that they poll ~4.5m votes in the 2015 GE for 1 MP, while the SNP poll ~1.7m for >30 MPs?? Our political system isn't fit for 21st Century purpose and I'm fed up with it.

It might not sound “correct” when stated like that Navy but the context that’s missing from that statement is that the SNP only stood in Scottish seats (so around 50?) whereas UKIP stood in probably 10 times as many so with a much wider distribution of votes of course there’s less chance of them winning actual seats. Having said that there is still an element of that that would advocate PR.
It also more importantly illustrates the benefits of devolution. Without Devo the Tories would have 13 seats but be running the country (Scotland) which recent history will tell you is significantly Left of England. That rightly or wrongly was the kind of situation that before Devo fuelled the Inde debate and to an extent still does. Devo however means in their own parliament the Jocks can have majority government of the flavour of their choosing, thus mitigating to a degree the worst effects of big bad Tory right wing England.

[navyblueshorts]

...PR, great idea, I just don't think it can work in the UK. We only seem able to function wit ha majority govt in situ, as the last 2 years clearly demonstrates...

This is the problem with this Country and any form of PR. Of course it can work. I mean, we did all right in WWII with what was effectively a PR/coalition sort of Government. Most of mainland Europe does fine with this form of arrangement. It's about agreeing compromises. Maybe that's a problem because we're so immature. The extremes of any debate are rarely the best real-world solution to anything.

I loathe UKIP's ideals, but who in the World thinks it's correct that they poll ~4.5m votes in the 2015 GE for 1 MP, while the SNP poll ~1.7m for >30 MPs?? Our political system isn't fit for 21st Century purpose and I'm fed up with it.

It might not sound “correct” when stated like that Navy but the context that’s missing from that statement is that the SNP only stood in Scottish seats (so around 50?) whereas UKIP stood in probably 10 times as many so with a much wider distribution of votes of course there’s less chance of them winning actual seats. Having said that there is still an element of that that would advocate PR.
It also more importantly illustrates the benefits of devolution. Without Devo the Tories would have 13 seats but be running the country (Scotland) which recent history will tell you is significantly Left of England. That rightly or wrongly was the kind of situation that before Devo fuelled the Inde debate and to an extent still does. Devo however means in their own parliament the Jocks can have majority government of the flavour of their choosing, thus mitigating to a degree the worst effects of big bad Tory right wing England.

It's not correct, JAS. Period.

I have no time for the SNP really, or for those that voted them in at GE2015. Hypocrits; many of whom voting to stay in the Union, but then returned 30+ SNP MPs to Westminster. Cake and eating it. I get that's politics, but I ****ing hate it. While we're in this Brexit cluster****, why not let's go the whole way and saw off Scotland, Wales and NI too? Might as well.

I quite like Ken Clarke, but if I wasn't a Tory voter in Rushcliffe, I'd have been feeling disenfranchised for decades. I'm happy to chat about politics etc, but I won't be voting again anytime soon under the current system. I might vote Green or something out of the mainstream, just to salve my conscience by voting, but not under any expectation that my vote actually means a damned thing. Are the Monster Raving Loony party still in business?

[Diggers]

...PR, great idea, I just don't think it can work in the UK. We only seem able to function wit ha majority govt in situ, as the last 2 years clearly demonstrates...

This is the problem with this Country and any form of PR. Of course it can work. I mean, we did all right in WWII with what was effectively a PR/coalition sort of Government. Most of mainland Europe does fine with this form of arrangement. It's about agreeing compromises. Maybe that's a problem because we're so immature. The extremes of any debate are rarely the best real-world solution to anything.

I loathe UKIP's ideals, but who in the World thinks it's correct that they poll ~4.5m votes in the 2015 GE for 1 MP, while the SNP poll ~1.7m for >30 MPs?? Our political system isn't fit for 21st Century purpose and I'm fed up with it.

It might not sound “correct” when stated like that Navy but the context that’s missing from that statement is that the SNP only stood in Scottish seats (so around 50?) whereas UKIP stood in probably 10 times as many so with a much wider distribution of votes of course there’s less chance of them winning actual seats. Having said that there is still an element of that that would advocate PR.
It also more importantly illustrates the benefits of devolution. Without Devo the Tories would have 13 seats but be running the country (Scotland) which recent history will tell you is significantly Left of England. That rightly or wrongly was the kind of situation that before Devo fuelled the Inde debate and to an extent still does. Devo however means in their own parliament the Jocks can have majority government of the flavour of their choosing, thus mitigating to a degree the worst effects of big bad Tory right wing England.

It's not correct, JAS. Period.

I have no time for the SNP really, or for those that voted them in at GE2015. Hypocrits; many of whom voting to stay in the Union, but then returned 30+ SNP MPs to Westminster. Cake and eating it. I get that's politics, but I ****ing hate it. While we're in this Brexit cluster****, why not let's go the whole way and saw off Scotland, Wales and NI too? Might as well.

I quite like Ken Clarke, but if I wasn't a Tory voter in Rushcliffe, I'd have been feeling disenfranchised for decades. I'm happy to chat about politics etc, but I won't be voting again anytime soon under the current system. I might vote Green or something out of the mainstream, just to salve my conscience by voting, but not under any expectation that my vote actually means a damned thing. Are the Monster Raving Loony party still in business?

Not too sure going back to WW2 gives us any real guidance as to whether a coalition works. I think we'd be better off looking at the last coalition, only a few years ago, that basically resulted in the demise of the Liberal Party. I do take your point though, there are huge issues with the current system.

[navyblueshorts]

Not too sure going back to WW2 gives us any real guidance as to whether a coalition works. I think we'd be better off looking at the last coalition, only a few years ago, that basically resulted in the demise of the Liberal Party. I do take your point though, there are huge issues with the current system.

Not sure I'd describe that 'coalition' as a proper example. More like the Lib Dems were the Tories fags and blamed for pretty much everything. Seem to remember the Tories giving us a referendum on PR then as well, and then torpedoing it at the same time. W***ers, the lot of them.

[JAS]

...PR, great idea, I just don't think it can work in the UK. We only seem able to function wit ha majority govt in situ, as the last 2 years clearly demonstrates...

This is the problem with this Country and any form of PR. Of course it can work. I mean, we did all right in WWII with what was effectively a PR/coalition sort of Government. Most of mainland Europe does fine with this form of arrangement. It's about agreeing compromises. Maybe that's a problem because we're so immature. The extremes of any debate are rarely the best real-world solution to anything.

I loathe UKIP's ideals, but who in the World thinks it's correct that they poll ~4.5m votes in the 2015 GE for 1 MP, while the SNP poll ~1.7m for >30 MPs?? Our political system isn't fit for 21st Century purpose and I'm fed up with it.

It might not sound “correct” when stated like that Navy but the context that’s missing from that statement is that the SNP only stood in Scottish seats (so around 50?) whereas UKIP stood in probably 10 times as many so with a much wider distribution of votes of course there’s less chance of them winning actual seats. Having said that there is still an element of that that would advocate PR.
It also more importantly illustrates the benefits of devolution. Without Devo the Tories would have 13 seats but be running the country (Scotland) which recent history will tell you is significantly Left of England. That rightly or wrongly was the kind of situation that before Devo fuelled the Inde debate and to an extent still does. Devo however means in their own parliament the Jocks can have majority government of the flavour of their choosing, thus mitigating to a degree the worst effects of big bad Tory right wing England.

It's not correct, JAS. Period.

I have no time for the SNP really, or for those that voted them in at GE2015. Hypocrits; many of whom voting to stay in the Union, but then returned 30+ SNP MPs to Westminster. Cake and eating it. I get that's politics, but I ****ing hate it. While we're in this Brexit cluster****, why not let's go the whole way and saw off Scotland, Wales and NI too? Might as well.

I quite like Ken Clarke, but if I wasn't a Tory voter in Rushcliffe, I'd have been feeling disenfranchised for decades. I'm happy to chat about politics etc, but I won't be voting again anytime soon under the current system. I might vote Green or something out of the mainstream, just to salve my conscience by voting, but not under any expectation that my vote actually means a damned thing. Are the Monster Raving Loony party still in business?

Navy sounds like you pretty much missed the point of what I was trying to say. Trying to compare snp/UKIPs UK wide electoral performance is like trying to compare cars and trains. They both exist in places the other doesn’t so a direct comparison just doesn’t compute. You don’t have to like the SNP to accept that they’ve been helluva successful politically over the past couple of decades. It’s not their fault they’ve been successful, they’ve just exploited disillusionment of the big 2 better in their patch than UKIP have. Don’t get me wrong, whilst I may have sympathies with their general outlook, if I were living back up in Scotland I wouldn’t vote for them as I don’t believe independence is what they should be doing. Whatever their arguments either way though, they have clearly managed to convince a proportionately higher section of their electorate than UKIP. I don’t know whether that says more about the 2 parties or the 2 electorates!!

[Roller_Coaster]

I can honestly see our  (sorry, technically your) elected representatives:

Voting against the deal on the table (I know that's a past tenser now - again)
Voting against a "no deal" exit
Voting against an extension to Art 50
Refusing to remain.

I would no longer be surprised if the only way forward was a massive game of Rock, Paper, Scissors in the house.

If only they could all agree on whether to go "on three" or "three then go".

But we all know they couldn't.

Why would you expect them to agree easily? Everyone tells them to get on with it, agree something, but the fly in the ointment is we are all only happy it the thing that's agreed is what we want.
The backstop is a huge issue for many reasons, and I don't give a monkeys what anyone says, I followed the referendum debate closely and it barely got a mention. Logically, looking back it should have been flagged immediately, the only reason the Good Friday Agreement worked is because Ireland and the UK are EU member states.

Because the question is go "on three" or "three then go"? (and the answer is, obviously "on three" btw )

[Diggers]

Hammond making a play for PM? Odious toad for PM.

[navyblueshorts]

...PR, great idea, I just don't think it can work in the UK. We only seem able to function wit ha majority govt in situ, as the last 2 years clearly demonstrates...

This is the problem with this Country and any form of PR. Of course it can work. I mean, we did all right in WWII with what was effectively a PR/coalition sort of Government. Most of mainland Europe does fine with this form of arrangement. It's about agreeing compromises. Maybe that's a problem because we're so immature. The extremes of any debate are rarely the best real-world solution to anything.

I loathe UKIP's ideals, but who in the World thinks it's correct that they poll ~4.5m votes in the 2015 GE for 1 MP, while the SNP poll ~1.7m for >30 MPs?? Our political system isn't fit for 21st Century purpose and I'm fed up with it.

It might not sound “correct” when stated like that Navy but the context that’s missing from that statement is that the SNP only stood in Scottish seats (so around 50?) whereas UKIP stood in probably 10 times as many so with a much wider distribution of votes of course there’s less chance of them winning actual seats. Having said that there is still an element of that that would advocate PR.
It also more importantly illustrates the benefits of devolution. Without Devo the Tories would have 13 seats but be running the country (Scotland) which recent history will tell you is significantly Left of England. That rightly or wrongly was the kind of situation that before Devo fuelled the Inde debate and to an extent still does. Devo however means in their own parliament the Jocks can have majority government of the flavour of their choosing, thus mitigating to a degree the worst effects of big bad Tory right wing England.

It's not correct, JAS. Period.

I have no time for the SNP really, or for those that voted them in at GE2015. Hypocrits; many of whom voting to stay in the Union, but then returned 30+ SNP MPs to Westminster. Cake and eating it. I get that's politics, but I ****ing hate it. While we're in this Brexit cluster****, why not let's go the whole way and saw off Scotland, Wales and NI too? Might as well.

I quite like Ken Clarke, but if I wasn't a Tory voter in Rushcliffe, I'd have been feeling disenfranchised for decades. I'm happy to chat about politics etc, but I won't be voting again anytime soon under the current system. I might vote Green or something out of the mainstream, just to salve my conscience by voting, but not under any expectation that my vote actually means a damned thing. Are the Monster Raving Loony party still in business?

Navy sounds like you pretty much missed the point of what I was trying to say. Trying to compare snp/UKIPs UK wide electoral performance is like trying to compare cars and trains. They both exist in places the other doesn’t so a direct comparison just doesn’t compute. You don’t have to like the SNP to accept that they’ve been helluva successful politically over the past couple of decades. It’s not their fault they’ve been successful, they’ve just exploited disillusionment of the big 2 better in their patch than UKIP have. Don’t get me wrong, whilst I may have sympathies with their general outlook, if I were living back up in Scotland I wouldn’t vote for them as I don’t believe independence is what they should be doing. Whatever their arguments either way though, they have clearly managed to convince a proportionately higher section of their electorate than UKIP. I don’t know whether that says more about the 2 parties or the 2 electorates!!

Nah. I get the point, and it's valid . I just think our FPTP system is antiquated and, basically, scheiss. Just getting it off my chest.

[dynamark]

FPTP is very poor all round and probably the main reason folk are less interested in their politics.
The referendum was a situation where every vote actually counted towards the result (high turnout)and now we are struggling because of our electoral set up to implement a result.
Unless I'm mistaken the Scots also had their vote on in/out and they still have a party trying to run against the tide.Wierd.
.

[McLaren]

I voted for the proposed AV system in 2012 referendum. I know it wasn't exactly the PR system the purists wanted but it would have been a start.

[Diggers]

Cracking result for Liverpool, English clubs storming through. Still have a feeling Juve and Barca produce the winner in a final battle of 2 legends, both just about hanging onto their pomp.

[Sponsored content]