*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

The statement at the end, "We care because we're following the rules" (paraphrased) is the most vapid statement about public health I've heard recently.

[Poopadoop]

Damn, and here I was thinking we could just take back control of our flights to other countries and not have to deal with their stupid "regulations".

#MEGA

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-b1035344.html

[Poopadoop]

I enjoyed this bit myself. After a 2nd year student talks about receiving a used testing kit:

She claims they were then told by the staff not to ‘put it on social media’.

Riiiight. "Whatever you do with that used kit, don't tell the world we fucked up! k thx bye."



Meanwhile in dorm 2:

[OngBonga]

That is pure fear porn. If there are no flights between the UK and the EU, that will hurt them a lot more than it will hurt us. And it'll hurt us enough to not want to go down that road. There are a lot more UK tourists going to Europe than the other way around. Without British tourists, Spain and Portugal would suffer badly. We'd suffer too, we rely on European tourists, but not nearly on the same scale. We're far more reliant on East Asian tourism.

This will not happen. And if it does, fucking LOL. That's a bonus for climate change, isn't it?

[Poopadoop]

Well, the transport sec. says he is 'seeking arrangements.' It's just a bit funny that they're finally getting around to this now, after four years. You'd think that'd be a pretty easy one, and they'd get it out of the way early so they could concentrate on the hard ones.

And lol that there's anything about Brexit that's gonna hurt the EU more than it hurts us. You been drinking the kool aid if you think we have them over any barrels, m'boy.

[OngBonga]

And lol that there's anything about Brexit that's gonna hurt the EU more than it hurts us. You been drinking the kool aid if you think we have them over any barrels, m'boy.

You're being pretty naive here, based on your ideology. There are some aspects which will hurt us more, and some that will hurt them more. A clear example is cars. How many British cars do you think are on the German roads? How many German cars are on British roads? If Audis cost 10%, then they don't sell as many of them in the UK. That hurts Germany.

You can't seriously think it's all one way traffic.

[Poopadoop]

lol yeah I'm the one who's naive.

The German car industry already said (in writing) long ago the integrity of the EU was more important than guarding their exports to the UK. I quoted this to you once before but obviously you've forgotten.


The British car industry has forecast huge losses for itself after Brexit, based on its use of imported parts from outside the EU

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54345882


Don't forget we're also losing all the trade agreements we currently have as part of the EU.

https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topi...ational-trade/


Here's some more bullshit you've probably been told, and why it's not true:

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2019/07/13-au...-myths-busted/

[OngBonga]

The German car industry already said (in writing) long ago the integrity of the EU was more important than guarding their exports to the UK. I quoted this to you once before but obviously you've forgotten.

This isn't the point. You're telling me that there are no examples of situations that hurt the EU more than us. I just gave you one, and you give me an irrelevant point.

And lol at "the British car industry". We don't fucking have one. It's all foreign owned.

[Poopadoop]

This isn't the point. You're telling me that there are no examples of situations that hurt the EU more than us. I just gave you one, and you give me an irrelevant point.

Of course it's relevant. But if you don't like that point, choose one of the others. You have no argument, OTOH.

And lol at "the British car industry". We don't fucking have one. It's all foreign owned.

yeah, only about 800,000 jobs. No biggie. Let's concentrate on the 24,000 who work in fishing.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...yment-figures/

https://www.dw.com/en/uk-fishing-ind...ngs/a-51418061

[Poopadoop]

But only 168k of those jobs are in manufacturing. So only 7x as many as in the entire fishing industry. But hey, there'll be plenty of openings in the lucrative fruit picking industry.

Also, 8/10 cars built in the UK are exported. Hope that trade deal with Japan works out.

https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/uk-automotive/

[OngBonga]

yeah, only about 800,000 jobs. No biggie.

How many of these people are helping to support the German economy?

Of course it's relevant.

No, it wasn't. I said "it hurts them" and you say "no it doesn't, here's a quote that shows they admit it will hurt them but they don't think it's the most important thing to worry about".

[Poopadoop]

How many of these people are helping to support the German economy?

I suspect people who live and work in the UK contribute more to the UK economy than the German one. Maybe you have evidence otherwise?

At the very least surely these workers are mostly made up of UK nationals who you were unselfishly trying to help by voting for Brexit.

No, it wasn't. I said "it hurts them" and you say "no it doesn't, here's a quote that shows they admit it will hurt them but they don't think it's the most important thing to worry about".

Put down the bong for a minute and try to remember what you said an hour ago.

There are some aspects which will hurt us more, and some that will hurt them more. A clear example is cars.

Or even half an hour ago.

You're telling me that there are no examples of situations that hurt the EU more than us. I just gave you one

Now go on and explain to me why their auto industry is prepared to sacrifice the UK market, but ours is begging for a deal. Obviously you know something the auto industries don't, so please share it with the class.

[OngBonga]

I suspect people who live and work in the UK contribute more to the UK economy than the German one. Maybe you have evidence otherwise?

Well where's your evidence? Why is the onus on me?

If someone is working for a German car company in the UK, then the profits go to Germany. There are a ridiculous number of German cars on our roads, we're a huge market for them. The UK gets tax. But people need cars... we're getting that tax one way or another, it doesn't matter if it's a German car, or a Japanese car. So the only net loss to the UK taxman is the lost income tax, but do you think these people will be out of work for long? They're not idle fuckers like me. When you have lots of skilled, willing unemployed people, there are opportunities for new businesses. So the loss to the taxman is short-term. The loss to the German car industry is longer term. It won't hurt them to the point of Audi going bankrupt, but if they lose the British market, their CEO won't be getting as juicy a dividend.

Put down the bong for a minute and try to remember what you said an hour ago.

I think you're smoking a bong. I'm not seeing a contradiction.

Now go on and explain to me why their auto industry is prepared to sacrifice the UK market, but ours is begging for a deal. Obviously you know something the auto industries don't, so please share it with the class.

I think you choose to see it as you wish. Words like "begging" are subjective, probably picked up by the media using words like "plea". They're prepared to "sacrifice" the UK market because it's out of their hands. It's like when you get dumped by someone you really like, but you pretend to not give a fuck, before going to have a private cry. The German auto industry isn't a relevant party when it comes to negotiations. They are watching on the sidelines, as the EU and UK negotiate. So we're "begging" for a deal because it's in our interests, as well as the EU's. The auto industry isn't begging for anything because they leave the negotiating to the EU. They're probably quietly lobbying instead.

[Poopadoop]

Well where's your evidence? Why is the onus on me?

Just seems like common sense. Unless most of these 800,00 people are buying their groceries in Germany, living in houses and paying rent in Germany, and/or sending their earnings to relatives in Germany, the default assumption would be they're contributing more to the UK economy than Germany's.

If someone is working for a German car company in the UK, then the profits go to Germany.

There's more economy that comes from a business than the net profits, as I alluded to above. 800,000 gainfully employed people in the UK also make profits off their work (called a wage), and those profits end up contributing mainly to the UK economy.

There are a ridiculous number of German cars on our roads, we're a huge market for them. The UK gets tax. But people need cars... we're getting that tax one way or another, it doesn't matter if it's a German car, or a Japanese car.

You're just rambling here.

do you think these people will be out of work for long?

Sounds like a good scenario for sure. As long as they can eventually find other jobs, they'll be fine. Like I said, fruit picking jobs will be abundant.

I think you're smoking a bong. I'm not seeing a contradiction.

The difference is between your original argument that the UK car industry would suffer less than the EU's, and what you later claimed was your argument, that Brexit would do at least some harm to the EU. See the difference? It's not really that subtle.

[Poopadoop]

Speaking of fish, seems Macron is digging in his heels on fishing rights. Doesn't he know we have him over a barrel?

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/st...26530601615362

[OngBonga]

You wouldn't believe how many people think Brexit is worse than covid. Are you one of them poop?

[OngBonga]

Just seems like common sense.

Right, so you want evidence from me, but you only need what you call "common sense", which of course is subjective as fuck.

the default assumption would be they're contributing more to the UK economy than Germany's.

Perhaps they are. But you're thinking short term. If an individual is out of work for six months, and then finds a new job, then they are contributing again. Meanwhile, we won't be back in the EU in six months. Maybe we'll have finally agreed a trade deal, but let's be honest, it's more likely that someone will find a new job than the UK and EU coming to a belated agreement.

[Poopadoop]

Right, so you want evidence from me, but you only need what you call "common sense", which of course is subjective as fuck.

I don't expect evidence for your argument because it doesn't make any sense to begin with. But hey, believe whatever makes you feel good.

And, if the UK auto industry primarily benefits Germany somehow, that would at least explain why they want a deal so badly, the unpatriotic bastards.

You wouldn't believe how many people think Brexit is worse than covid. Are you one of them poop?

I probably wouldn't if it was a number that came from you lol.

Are you one of them poop?

Whatever one can say about Brexit, a global pandemic causing over a million deaths is worse.

[OngBonga]

And, if the UK auto industry primarily benefits Germany somehow, that would at least explain why they want a deal so badly, the unpatriotic bastards.

Believe it or not, I don't think that the UK's strategy is to hurt them more than us. The UK want a deal because it's in our interests. The EU are considering a little more than the auto industry, they also have to worry about their little club. They do want to hurt the UK, because they want to deter others from leaving.

Whatever one can say about Brexit, a global pandemic causing over a million deaths is worse.

Well I was talking about economics, but then again maybe the entire UK population is going to starve, which would be worse than bad flu.

[Poopadoop]

Believe it or not, I don't think that the UK's strategy is to hurt them more than us.

That's not a productive strategy even if it were possible to somehow manage it.

The UK want a deal because it's in our interests. The EU are considering a little more than the auto industry, they also have to worry about their little club. They do want to hurt the UK, because they want to deter others from leaving.

The UK also has its own club to worry about.

The EU probably isn't bothered about hurting us, that's for sure, since it will serve as a deterrent to others leaving. They also know we can't hurt them as much as they can hurt us.

Well I was talking about economics, but then again maybe the entire UK population is going to starve, which would be worse than bad flu.

Don't think we're going to starve, but food bottlenecks are certainly posslble.

Ecomonically alone, the forecast from covid is worse than the forecast from Brexit; that's before you start piling up the dead.

[OngBonga]

The UK also has its own club to worry about.

I'm not worried. If Scotland want to leave, that's their democratic choice. They should have that choice. It's not my business, just like it's not a Frenchman's business if the UK wishes to leave the EU.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean... I feel where you're coming from, but the US fought a civil war over the cessation of the southern states.

IDK where to draw the line, but it's not so cut and dry as you make it sound, ong.

[OngBonga]

I'd like to think that 1700s USA is a different world to 2000s UK. I really don't see England and Scotland ever going to war again. The only way there might be problems is if the UK powers (Westminster) refuse to allow the Scots to have a democratic say, and Scotland then decide to unilaterally leave the UK regardless. That would cause problems. But even then, it's a stretch to believe it would descend into war.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'd like to think that 1700s USA is a different world to 2000s UK.

Of course, and I agree. I wasn't making a direct correlation. Only saying that your assertion that a people have the right to be self-governed is not a black and white issue. I stand by people's right to self-govern, but what constitutes a political "self" is not well-defined.

Is Taiwan an independent "self?" or is it an island state of China?
Depends who you ask, and the question is largely unresolved at this time.

I really don't see England and Scotland ever going to war again. The only way there might be problems is if the UK powers (Westminster) refuse to allow the Scots to have a democratic say, and Scotland then decide to unilaterally leave the UK regardless. That would cause problems. But even then, it's a stretch to believe it would descend into war.

You're probably right, but again, you're taking my allusion to the American Civil War too literally. It was only meant to illustrate the fuzziness of political selfhood during times of transition.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, don't think it's going to happen either. I don't think England would do Brexit based on a referendum and then deny Scotland the right to secede if it were voted for through another referendum. They'd just drag the negotiations out for a few years.

[Poopadoop]

Good to know it's all the fault of those libtard EU politicians! #MEGA

[OngBonga]

Is Taiwan an independent "self?" or is it an island state of China?

It's part of China, but it should be independent by any reasonable standard. They are essentially self-governing, but they are not recognised by the international community, A very contentious example.

International law is fairly clear on it, but in practise it's a great deal more complex. The important word is "nation", and what that means.
A nation, as defined by wikipedia, is...
"...a stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

Scotland is a nation, that is not in question. Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't know what nation means, or is being disingenuous. So Scotland has a right to self determination. But in the real world, what matters is international recognition. Catalonia is a nation, but nobody will recognise them nor will anyone stand up for their right to self determination. So they have no hope. If we decide that Scotland cannot have a referendum, and they declare independence, then it's a question of who will recognise them. England doesn't have all that many friends right now, certainly not in Europe, so it would definitely not be easy to call, but then again we stood by Spain, after we voted to leave. I really don't know. Better is for it to happen amicably. If they want independence, they should have it.

[Poopadoop]

Not letting them have another referendum would be a dick move though, pretty close on the dick scale to denying them the right to leave after a positive referendum.

If Scotland goes, N. Ireland won't be far behind imo.

[OngBonga]

I think the Irish situation is a little more concerning, in terms of security. And it's not a given that they will leave the UK. They are mostly divided along religious grounds, with Catholics making up 41.5% of the population, and Protestants or other Christians making up 41%. It's anyone's guess as to who would win a reunification referendum. I guess it comes down to those who don't give a fuck about religion.

[Poopadoop]

In other news, the gov'ts latest scandal involves voting down a motion to provide funding for school meals for disadvantaged children.

#MEGA by taking us back to Dickensian times!

[Poopadoop]

So the Telegraph (right-wing paper in UK) is now rolling out the excuses for why Brexit won't be as great as they all predicted. Or even good. Ok, in fact it will be a shitshow. Who'da thunk it?

https://twitter.com/BEERG/status/1320602841317335040

[OngBonga]

This "hungry children" is the latest Tory-hating virtue singnalling crap doing the rounds. There's nothing that tugs on the heart strings more than a hungry child.

A 2+2 family on Universal Credit (benefits) gets around £1100 a month, before their rent and council tax. There is no reason children should be hungry in this country. If a child is hungry, perhaps instead of asking what Boris is going to do about it, we should ask what the parents are doing with their benefits. My guess is special brew for Dad, wine for Mom, 20 ciggies a day, and scratchcards.

The last two weeks of the month are usually pretty tight for me, like £50 a week budget for food and baccy. More pasta less maccies.

[Poopadoop]

This "hungry children" is the latest Tory-hating virtue singnalling crap doing the rounds. There's nothing that tugs on the heart strings more than a hungry child.

A 2+2 family on Universal Credit (benefits) gets around £1100 a month, before their rent and council tax. There is no reason children should be hungry in this country. If a child is hungry, perhaps instead of asking what Boris is going to do about it, we should ask what the parents are doing with their benefits. My guess is special brew for Dad, wine for Mom, 20 ciggies a day, and scratchcards.

The last two weeks of the month are usually pretty tight for me, like £50 a week budget for food and baccy. More pasta less maccies.

The problem with your argument is the kids don't get to choose their parents - so unless the gov't can prove that the parents are using the kids' meal vouchers to barter for crack as one of the Tory MPs suggests, it's completely irrelevant to most decent people what the parents are like if the kids are going hungry. If some of them are so irresponsible they won't properly feed their kids, that's not a good reason to let those kids go hungry.

And if the parents are refusing to feed their kids because they spend all their money on booze and crack, the kids should be taken away from them and found a better home.

Doubtless a few mill out of the £12b spent on giving Dido "my husband is head of ethics so I can't be touched" Harding a plum job running TTI that doesn't work, with "consultants" earning £7k/day, and whatever other projects are being given to party donors, could more sensibly be used to feed hungry children rather than fatten rich party cronies.

[oskar]

This "hungry children" is the latest Tory-hating virtue singnalling crap doing the rounds. There's nothing that tugs on the heart strings more than a hungry child.

Do you ever read back what you just wrote and think: wow, that kinda sounds bad?

[Poopadoop]

Do you ever read back what you just wrote and think: wow, that kinda sounds bad?

Given that he fails to see the hypocrisy of accepting gov't handouts himself while thinking gov't money shouldn't also be spent on feeding children, I'm guessing the answer to this will be a resounding "No," or possibly "No, #MEGA."

[OngBonga]

Given that he fails to see the hypocrisy of accepting gov't handouts himself while thinking gov't money shouldn't also be spent on feeding children, I'm guessing the answer to this will be a resounding "No," or possibly "No, #MEGA."

There's no hypocrisy. You just like to think there is. I never suggested that the govt shouldn't feed children. I pointed out they already try to, and that if children are hungry, then it's the fault of the parents, not the govt.

Ultimately, it is the job of the parents to feed their children. If they won't do it, then of course the govt has to step in. But that shouldn't just involve free meals, that should also involve a social worker. If the govt are just handing out vouchers without condition, that results in bad parents becoming even more dependent on the govt than they already were.

I'm just going to point out that I came from a poor family, I went hungry at times. I can remember as a child sneaking out of class, finding the button for the bell, and ringing it because I was so hungry and wanted lunch. It upset some of the teachers. I had shit parents (Dad & Stepmom). I had a social worker too, and eventually was taken into care. And that's a lot less fun than being hungry. I can also remember phone calls to my Mom, crying, begging her to let me come and live with her. That's more painful than hunger, believe me.

So if anyone thinks I'm lacking in empathy, you couldn't be more wrong. I just don't blame the govt for parents doing a terrible job. I blame the parents. And parents will continue to do a shit job if the govt keep enabling them.

It's not an easy problem for the govt to solve. Throwing money around isn't the solution to bad parenting.

[OngBonga]

Ong, you seem to have this notion that since you don't feel oppressed, there is no oppression where you live.

This has nothing to do with oppression. A child who has terrible parents is not oppressed by the govt.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This has nothing to do with oppression. A child who has terrible parents is not oppressed by the govt.

You cut my question and responded to a non-sequitur.

Try again, man.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ong's argument hinges on what should be, and not what is.

Saying how things should be, but not checking to see if that's how they are, and insisting things are fine because they should be fine isn't going to advance our culture, or alleviate our constraints. It just leaves us on a slow decline of people in power taking more power and becoming more and more disconnected from the people they inevitably oppress.

Ong, you seem to have this notion that since you don't feel oppressed, there is no oppression where you live.
Doesn't that sound ... unlikely?

[Poopadoop]

Ong, I don't know why you always seem to think your personal experiences are relevant to national politics.

Brexit is going to cause shortages in fresh fruit and veg, but that's ok 'cause you like fish.

Damage to auto manufacturing? So what, you don't own a car anyways.

Kids going hungry? I had bad parents, so they must have bad parents too.

[OngBonga]

Kids going hungry? I had bad parents, so they must have bad parents too.

I can say with a great deal of confidence that at leat 95% of "hungry children" have terrible parents. What possible excuse is there? Ok, perhaps Mom has slipped into a diabetic coma and can't make dinner. I'm struggling to think of other ways a parent can allow a child to go hungry without it being the parent's fault. Medical emergencies, that's about it.

My personal experiences are relevant. You can't talk about hungry children and then tell me my experience as a hungry child is irrelevant.

[Poopadoop]

My personal experiences are relevant. You can't talk about hungry children and then tell me my experience as a hungry child is irrelevant.

Anecdotal evidence is problematic because you can't generalise from a sample of n=1 to n=1,000,000 or however many poor kids there are. I could just as easily find you an example of a single parent who's lost their job due to covid, has bills to pay, and is struggling to make ends meet through no fault of their own. But that would also be irrelevant because we are talking about the group of hungry children as a whole, not just the one or two or three kids I know of personally, or the one kid you once were 30 years ago.

[OngBonga]

Well if you're intent on playing semantics, then no the govt do not feed me, they provide me with the means to feed myself. If I spend all my money on weed, should I get a free meal? What about if I have a dog? Should someone else feed my dog? Or perhaps someone should take the dog off me if I'm too irresponsible to put its needs ahead of my smoking habit.

I am obviously a supporter of welfare. What I don't support is unending welfare where the govt literally take on the duties of the parent.

UK welfare is already sufficient to feed children. The problem is parents. Children should not be going hungry in the UK, and if they are, then there are serious problems with the parenting that needs addressing.

[Poopadoop]

Well if you're intent on playing semantics, then no the govt do not feed me, they provide me with the means to feed myself. If I spend all my money on weed, should I get a free meal? What about if I have a dog? Should someone else feed my dog? Or perhaps someone should take the dog off me if I'm too irresponsible to put its needs ahead of my smoking habit.

I am obviously a supporter of welfare. What I don't support is unending welfare where the govt literally take on the duties of the parent.

UK welfare is already sufficient to feed children. The problem is parents. Children should not be going hungry in the UK, and if they are, then there are serious problems with the parenting that needs addressing.

The difference is you're a grown-up and are in control of your own finances. Kids don't have that control. So if you want to blame the parents, fine, I agree some of them are probably irresponsible twats. But some of them are probably just falling on hard times, and that's not the kids' fault. Surely it's easier to send them all food vouchers than to have an army of social workers investigate every single child separately to see if they're starving because their parents are twats or because the gov't chose to let them.

Have you also considered how things are slightly different this year due to covid? That was largely the impetus behind the whole campaign afaik.

[OngBonga]

But some of them are probably just falling on hard times

I understand that. But still, the benefit system in this country is quite generous. Like I said earlier, a 2+2 family get around £1100 a month, before rent and council tax. So "hard times" is no excuse for kids going hungry. It's a reason to not drink as much, not buy scratchcards, not eat maccies, not go on holiday, not buy new clothes from designer stores, etc. Food for children is literally the highest priority.

No it's not the kids' fault their parents are terrible. And yes it's easier to dish out vouchers instead of sending out social workers. So you want the easy solution instead of the responsible solution? If you dish out vouchers, that provides an incentive for parents to keep being terrible. If you send a social worker, that provides an incentive for parents to stop being terrible.

And yes covid is a factor. That's why there are lots more people claiming UC. This is enough, provided parents don't squander the money.

[OngBonga]

I did just do some research to see how parents who own their property pay their mortgage when claiming benefits. I pay rent, which I get from the govt. Homeowners have to apply for a loan, but this loan is basically tagged to the value of the property and doesn't have to be paid back until the property is sold. So parents who cannot pay their mortgage get the help they need too.

Aside from extreme circumstances, I see no reason why a child should be going hungry in this country. It's nearly always bad parenting, and it's sufficiently serious enough for the govt to do more than simply provide meal vouchers.

[Poopadoop]

Do you think there was time last week to set up proper system to determine which parents would be letting their kids go hungry this week? How about by xmas holiday?

I don't disagree with your premise I just don't think it's practical.

[OngBonga]

Why did it need to be set up last week? There is already a social services system that has been functional since at least when I was a kid. What do you suppose happened after I rang the bell for lunch? I don't know this for certain, but I'm going to guess that one of the teachers contacted my social worker to inform them of their concerns. Today that is a legal requirement, it's called safeguarding.

[Poopadoop]

Why did it need to be set up last week? There is already a social services system that has been functional since at least when I was a kid. What do you suppose happened after I rang the bell for lunch? I don't know this for certain, but I'm going to guess that one of the teachers contacted my social worker to inform them of their concerns. Today that is a legal requirement, it's called safeguarding.

Kids aren't at school during half term - that's kind of the point of the vouchers.

So they can't ring the bell. I suppose they can call the fire department directly if they're hungry, but I'm just not sure they all have your moxie.

[Poopadoop]

You're still ignoring the fact that the victims in all of this are the children. There obviously is a deeper problem with bad parenting that can exacerbate the problem of hungry kids, but there are also responsible parents who struggle to feed their kids nutritious meals. Things like saying 'you can buy cheese and crackers for 40p a meal, and throw in the occassional hotdog. so just stretch your budget so it's calorie-rich and nutrient poor, but at least your kid won't starve' doesn't help because you can't live a healthy life with such an unabalanced diet.

Also, putting in a system that can properly identify when parents are mis-spending their pittance, even if that were possible, is going to cost the taxpayer more and would be very intrusive besides, and also would take time. It's not like there's a bunch of social workers sitting around with nothing to do all day, so let's put them in charge of auditing how everyone on benefits spends their money. You'd have to hire a lot more people and then hope no-one buys anything with cash so you can track their purchases. Aside from the Big Brother aspect of it, it just isn't practical and it also doesn't address what is happening right now, this week, with kids going hungry.

There's an immediate problem right now that can be solved with a few million quid. We can look for ways to solve the more difficult problems starting next week if we want, and we should.

[OngBonga]

Whether you realise it or not, you are demanding the govt enable bad parenting. Meal vouchers only serve to mask a problem that needs to be identified and dealt with. It encourages people to spend less of their actual money on food, which in turn is good news for tobacconists and off licenses.

The govt already provide. I know that UC is a pittance, there's no life of luxury. But the govt should not be providing luxury, they should be providing essentials, which they do.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people get outraged about this, especially given that MPs are getting pay rises while everyone else is laid off. Corruption and "me first" mentality is rife in government, and that only fuels the outrage. But blaming the govt for bad parenting is unhelpful, and is driven by politics, not reason.

[Poopadoop]

In other news, Fox News calls out the freedom-hating Kiwis.

#MNZGA

https://twitter.com/MoaVideos/status...42534266753026

[OngBonga]

lol at USA mocking NZ's freedoms.

Incarceration rates...
USA - 716/100000
NZ - 220/100000

[OngBonga]

Iceland is 38/100000

That's a total prison population of around 120-odd.

[OngBonga]

...but there are also responsible parents who struggle to feed their kids nutritious meals.

I'm unconvinced about this. Fruit and veg is not expensive. And school meals aren't quite what they were in terms of nutrition. Any voucher system is going to be cheap processed food, it's not going to be full of fresh fruit and veg which require preparation and therefore time. So if the goal is nutrition, then vouchers is not going to solve this problem.

Also, putting in a system that can properly identify when parents are mis-spending their pittance, even if that were possible, is going to cost the taxpayer more and would be very intrusive

It costs fuck all if there is a voucher system for parents who need extra financial help. Anyone who asks for such help immediately becomes known to social services, and further checks can be made. Perhaps you can ignore the first request, anyone can have a sudden bill or something that stretches the budget. But the second or third time, you have to start asking what is happening to their money they are re3ceiving already to support their family. Maybe the incentive can come in terms of docking their benefits the value of the voucher.

There's an immediate problem right now that can be solved with a few million quid. We can look for ways to solve the more difficult problems starting next week if we want, and we should.

It doesn't solve the problem, it exasperates if. Parents are getting away with failing in their duties, and being rewarded for it. That incentivises them to continue as they were.

[OngBonga]

^ that NZ figure is pretty high, btw, nearly twice the per capita rate of the UK. That's how far ahead of the rest of the pack USA are.

FREEEEEEDOM

[Poopadoop]

China is lower than many parts of Europe.

There's a lot cool maps on this page too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/com..._in_the_world/

[MadMojoMonkey]

China is lower than many parts of Europe.

There's a lot cool maps on this page too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/com..._in_the_world/

I was like... how is USA not #1, here. What're the stats? Wait... how is something above >700?
Wow... that's... way above 700. It's out of how many?
Oh. oh I see.
heh. It's funny 'cause Australia is the sex number.
Nice.

[Poopadoop]

So Boris (finally) caved and took the advice of his scientists, putting us in lockdown (but only after FRA and GER did it). Of course, now he's being accused of "giving in to science". #LOLMEGA

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...kdown-12120759

[OngBonga]

I've got my lockdown weed.

[Poopadoop]

Pretty sure the rules allow a fairly liberal interpretation of "essential trips."

[Poopadoop]

#MEGA

https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/st...36467310301184

[Poopadoop]

Boris is self-isolating again lol.

https://twitter.com/SpillerOfTea/sta...06145307832321

[Poopadoop]

"What about the own goal?"

"Which one?"

lmao

[Poopadoop]

More fake polls:

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/s...98307032961026

[OngBonga]

The replies in that tweet are wonderful. People "frightened" of being a British citizen, while shouting about Scottish independence. Why is it ok for Scotland to say "bollocks to the UK" but it's not ok for the UK to say "bollocks to the EU"?

[OngBonga]

Who cares? A poll is not a referendum, we already had one of those and got a democratic result.

[Poopadoop]

It is ok for Scotland to say that, just like it's ok for the UK to say it to the EU.

If Scotland would rather be part of the EU than of the UK, I can't blame them.

Just out of curiosity, are you actually starting to see what a royal fuckery Brexit is going to be? No deal with the EU at all by the looks of it, none with the US because of the Internal Market Bill, still only that one trade deal so far with Japan afaik, 7000 space underwater lorry park on a flood plain in Kent, food and medicine shortages anticipated, Scotland looking ready to bail with possibly N. Ireland right behind them. Even the fishermen are getting pissed off.

Just wondering how much cognitive dissonance it's going to take.

[OngBonga]

And by the way, if this does turn out bad, then I blame the Tories, not Brexit voters. I think we agree this has been managed horribly. That doesn't mean we'd be better off remaining. That means we need a better government. If the masses agree, then the Tories will be held to democratic account in due course. That's the democracy we don't have with the EU.

[OngBonga]

I'm still not going to change my vote if given the chance. This was never about economics first. Democracy is too important. And I'm not talking about the will of the people being respected. That of course is important, but democratic control is critical for a modern society. We do not have that with the EU. How do we democratically hold them to account? Wait for another referendum? It seems like democracy is a sacrifice people are willing to make in order to have cheap imports and the ability to work in France, even though most of us don't want to.

[Poopadoop]

You had a vote in the European Parliament mate.

What would a different gov't have done better? Found a nice dry place to put the lorry park? The Irish problem was always going to be intractable, and the EU was never going to give us a plum deal after we left.

[OngBonga]

You had a vote in the European Parliament mate.

Is this form of democracy satisfactory to you? It isn't to me. Sending a MEP is not holding them to account. We sent Farage ffs, all he could do was wave his cock about and help himself to free beer. He didn't change policy.

In theory, there is nothing stopping you or I creating a political party in the UK, entering an election, and winning. We can vote for a different party with different policy. We can hold the UK government to account, once every five years. That is a brand of democracy I find acceptable, even if the way we go about it is heavily flawed.

What we can't do is create our own economic and political union, and go to the polls against the EU, asking voters to choose between our policies. There is no way to hold the EU to account, democratically or legally. We can send MEPs, but what are they actually doing? Nige creamed off a salary for taking the piss. We sent the most anti-EU person we could find that doesn't swear, and sent him there. He had 1/750th of a say in policy. If we sent 45 Nigel Farages, we still have, what, 6%? Holy fuck that was actually accurate, seriously I guessed that then checked. I digress. The entire population of the UK is incapable of changing EU policy. And so this is not a form of democracy I find acceptable.

idk what a different govt could do. Negotiate with good faith? That's easier said than done. It's impossible to do if the other party is not doing so. It's clear to me that neither the EU nor the UK have acted in good faith throughout these negotiations. Maybe this was how it had to be.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What are you on about with the whole, "This isn't democracy" thing?

Your chosen boundary of who you consider "your" people don't constitute a majority, and can't bully the rest of the people, so that's not democracy? Does any other single nation in the EU have that privilege? No? So each nation is on a basically equal footing with roughly equivalent ability to unilaterally strong-arm the rest of the union?

And this is NOT democracy to you?


Like... should all 50 states get all up in arms because they can't strong-arm the US federal gov't? Is that democracy to you?

[OngBonga]

Does any other single nation in the EU have that privilege? No?

Indeed, no single country in the EU can hold the EU to democratic account.

And this is NOT democracy to you?

No. It's a single-party system. There is no alternative.

Like... should all 50 states get all up in arms because they can't strong-arm the US federal gov't? Is that democracy to you?

At least in USA you have two parties to choose from. If you don't like the current govt, you can vote for the other option. Still not great, but it's better than the EU. If one single state feels that being a member of the USA is not in their interests, then perhaps they should leave the union.

[Poopadoop]

Indeed, no single country in the EU can hold the EU to democratic account.



No. It's a single-party system. There is no alternative.



At least in USA you have two parties to choose from. If you don't like the current govt, you can vote for the other option. Still not great, but it's better than the EU. If one single state feels that being a member of the USA is not in their interests, then perhaps they should leave the union.

What are you even talking about here?

There's 27 countries in the EU parliament, hence 27 separate interests being represented. That's more than 2 parties in the US, it's more than the 1 party you made up , and its' more than we have even in the UK even if u include the Greens and the Loony Monster Party.

If there was only one party, they'd never have to vote on anything 'cause they'd all vote the same way. That's not what happens. Ergo, you're full of shit. Again.