MayDup government confirmed

WARNING: This section may contain jokes or topics of an offensive nature.
Recommended for over 18's only. Send Admin a PM to request exclusion.

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
DUP have signed a supply and confidence deal in return for a billion quid to NI.
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 16823
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
MayDUP doesn't really work, does it? One person's name and an organisations together? Nah...
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Shade wrote:MayDUP doesn't really work, does it? One person's name and an organisations together? Nah...
But it sounds like made up, so is mildly amusing in that sense.

Still, £1 billion should buy plenty of new marching boots, paramilitary rifles and balaclavas, and anti-abortion campaigns.

Hopefully the South West region Tories will now threaten to vote against May unless she bungs us £1 billion as well.
User avatar
Malabus
Posts: 13336
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 12:26
Location: The Death Star.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Still, £1 billion should buy plenty of new marching boots, paramilitary rifles and balaclavas, and anti-abortion campaigns.
Really.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Malabus wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Still, £1 billion should buy plenty of new marching boots, paramilitary rifles and balaclavas, and anti-abortion campaigns.
Really.
Ok, ok... more flags and spray paint as well.

Not to mention another half billion to fund cash for ash and fraudulent renewable energy schemes.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
The DUP's deal is reportedly:

£400m infrastructure
£150m broadband improvements
£200m health services overhaul
£100m health and education investment
£50m mental health services investment

No doubt the Welsh and Scottish nationalists will up in arms, particularly wee Jimmy Krankie. Oh how I loathe that cretinous one-policy woman.
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 16823
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
Circa 1887 wrote:The DUP's deal is reportedly:

£400m infrastructure
£150m broadband improvements
£200m health services overhaul
£100m health and education investment
£50m mental health services investment
Absolutely shocking, RCS will be beside himself with rage with those terrorist ideals being funded.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
I'm sure Labour/Momentum, Lib Dem, The Guardian and the BBC will conveniently ignore Gordon Brown's effort to 'bribe' the DUP in 2010 and Ed Milliband's preemptive letter to them in 2015.

I look forward to well balanced public debate from the left, that acknowledges their own attempts at bribery to secure power....but I won't hold my breath. The current approach of shouting loudly and obnoxiously from the faux moral high ground will no doubt prevail.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:The DUP's deal is reportedly:

£400m infrastructure
£150m broadband improvements
£200m health services overhaul
£100m health and education investment
£50m mental health services investment

No doubt the Welsh and Scottish nationalists will up in arms, particularly wee Jimmy Krankie. Oh how I loathe that cretinous one-policy woman.
Implications in terms of the Barnett Formula are interesting; unprecedented for one devolved nation to receive such a funding award without others getting something.

Also, an insult to NHS staff & patients and teachers & pupils in England. The 1.8 million people in Northern Ireland already receive ore financial support per heard from the British taxpayer than those in the rest of the UK and now they get £1 billion extra when we get nothing other than 'tough decisions' to deny us treatment.

If Gloucestershire schools and NHS have to make a single cut I expect Alex Chalk and the rest of our MPs demanding to know why Ulster get more support for services whilst Gloucestershire gets the opposite.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
I agree with all of that. But it's the flaw of our version of democracy and always will be, unless will suddenly discover a generation of politicians with an ounce of integrity.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
There is also a lot of politicking going on in the outraged responses by various party leaders, though. For example, the SNP have chosen not to mention £500m of additional spending from the Conservative government (David Cameron) on investment in Glasgow, which was done outside of the Barnett Formula.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:I agree with all of that. But it's the flaw of our version of democracy and always will be, unless will suddenly discover a generation of politicians with an ounce of integrity.
One came to fore this year; Jeremy Corbyn. It is his integrity and principles which engaged so many people in politics for the first time.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:There is also a lot of politicking going on in the outraged responses by various party leaders, though. For example, the SNP have chosen not to mention £500m of additional spending from the Conservative government (David Cameron) on investment in Glasgow, which was done outside of the Barnett Formula.
That is because funding for Glasgow is a similar targeted mechanism for funding as the City Deals in England Wales as has been seen for Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and West of England, Cardiff, Swansea, as well as similar to Dundee, etc, and in fact Belfast and Derry~Londonderry.

The DUP deal is not a targeted fund, but instead general government funding for public services, pretty much identical to what the Barnett funding covers.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Circa 1887 wrote:There is also a lot of politicking going on in the outraged responses by various party leaders, though. For example, the SNP have chosen not to mention £500m of additional spending from the Conservative government (David Cameron) on investment in Glasgow, which was done outside of the Barnett Formula.
That is because funding for Glasgow is a similar targeted mechanism for funding as the City Deals in England Wales as has been seen for Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and West of England, Cardiff, Swansea, as well as similar to Dundee, etc, and in fact Belfast and Derry~Londonderry.

The DUP deal is not a targeted fund, but instead general government funding for public services, pretty much identical to what the Barnett funding covers.
Yes there are the city deals - which invested £500 million directly in Glasgow, £125 million in Aberdeen and £53 million in Inverness.

But, there have also been the £5 million for the V&A Dundee, the £5 million for the Glasgow School of Art or £5 million on regenerating Helensburgh’s waterfront.

Spending above and beyond the Barnett Formula is not a new thing.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Circa 1887 wrote:I agree with all of that. But it's the flaw of our version of democracy and always will be, unless will suddenly discover a generation of politicians with an ounce of integrity.
One came to fore this year; Jeremy Corbyn. It is his integrity and principles which engaged so many people in politics for the first time.
I'm sorry, but the man is nothing more than a hero of the leisured classes.

I cannot believe he had the audacity to talk at Glastonbury about a message to Donald Trump on the wall "build bridges not walls".....that's on the £2m 'Super-fence' that surrounds the middle-aged, middle-class audience that has paid £243 each to attend. So i'm sure he and his chum Michael Eavis will be ensuring a Glastonbury "for the many and not the few" next time around, right? I'll keep an eye out for my free ticket.

He stands there talking about ‘hope’, ‘dreams’ and the ‘spirit of love’, insisting ‘peace is possible’ and that ‘every child is a poem’. Exactly the kind of piffle that means nothing and cannot be quantified, but gets lapped up by the vain middle classes in attendance, many enjoying corporate hospitality, who have confused their echo chamber for the public, who think that from their position of comfort they speak for the underprivileged. The bloke may as well have stood there and said "Good things are good" and "Bad things are bad" and the seals would have still clapped (those that we greedy and heartless British consumers haven't killed yet, that is).
Last edited by Circa 1887 on 27 Jun 2017, 12:21, edited 1 time in total.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Circa 1887 wrote:There is also a lot of politicking going on in the outraged responses by various party leaders, though. For example, the SNP have chosen not to mention £500m of additional spending from the Conservative government (David Cameron) on investment in Glasgow, which was done outside of the Barnett Formula.
That is because funding for Glasgow is a similar targeted mechanism for funding as the City Deals in England Wales as has been seen for Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and West of England, Cardiff, Swansea, as well as similar to Dundee, etc, and in fact Belfast and Derry~Londonderry.

The DUP deal is not a targeted fund, but instead general government funding for public services, pretty much identical to what the Barnett funding covers.
Yes there are the city deals - which invested £500 million directly in Glasgow, £125 million in Aberdeen and £53 million in Inverness.

But, there have also been the £5 million for the V&A Dundee, the £5 million for the Glasgow School of Art or £5 million on regenerating Helensburgh’s waterfront.

Spending above and beyond the Barnett Formula is not a new thing.
Precisely the point; they are targeted investments on specific local things, not general public spending on a national level. We get waiting lists but NI get a chunk of NHS cash? If the money is there, put it into NHS and Education and Care - don't treat us like mugs saying the money is not there then sending a magic £1bn to Belfast. If Tories cared more about UK public services than their self-preservation they would have done.

DUP would not have voted against them anyway so a real unfair waste of taxpayer money.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
But presumably you are cool with Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband attempting to do the same in 2010 and 2015 respectively, or the SNP doing it with the Greens in Scotland?

You'll have to direct me to the threads you started on those, as i'm sure you would have met it with equal mockery and disdain?
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Circa 1887 wrote:I agree with all of that. But it's the flaw of our version of democracy and always will be, unless will suddenly discover a generation of politicians with an ounce of integrity.
One came to fore this year; Jeremy Corbyn. It is his integrity and principles which engaged so many people in politics for the first time.
I'm sorry, but the man is nothing more than a hero of the leisured classes.

I cannot believe he had the audacity to talk at Glastonbury about a message to Donald Trump on the wall "build bridges not walls".....that's on the £2m 'Super-fence' that surrounds the middle-aged, middle-class audience that has paid £243 each to attend. So i'm sure he and his chum Michael Eavis will be ensuring a Glastonbury "for the many and not the few" next time around, right? I'll keep an eye out for my free ticket.

He stands there talking about ‘hope’, ‘dreams’ and the ‘spirit of love’, insisting ‘peace is possible’ and that ‘every child is a poem’. Exactly the kind of piffle that means nothing and cannot be quantified, but gets lapped up by the vain middle classes in attendance, many enjoying corporate hospitality, who have confused their echo chamber for the public, who think that from their position of comfort they speak for the underprivileged. The bloke may as well have stood there and said "Good things are good" and "Bad things are bad" and the seals would have still clapped (those that we greedy and heartless British consumers haven't killed yet, that is).
40% of the vote and now polling at 46%; that's a big echo chamber. Almost as big as the 42% echo chamber of Tories.

That's why places like Hartlepool saw the Labour vote share go up. Are you saying all those working class deprived communities bearing the brunt of Tory austerity made the trip to Worthy Farm?

You may not like his lifelong commitment to reducing inequality and 30 years of voting for his beliefs even if against the whip, but tough, it is a political movement that is here to stay.

You may not like underpaid nurses and firemen expressing their political voice, and you may not like disabled people or users of closed women's refuges, or libraries using their right to cast a vote, but tough, they are valid members of the electorate with valid concerns. To dismiss the only politicians who have fought for these people for decades and those who can empathise with the plight of others as you do is offensive to those suffering under the austerity regime.

And on the topic of consumers; time to end the monopolies controlling our railways and oligopolies controlling our energy supply which do nothing for consumers other than over charge. Nationalise sectors which can't operate as a free-market, let bad firms die, and let the free-market rule in sectors where it can operate. People may be able to afford a £10 salmon if the energy they use to cook it was charged at cost price rather than hiked up to extort maximum profit from the population.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
You mention Hartlepool voting Labour, why not mention places like Clacton that voted Tory.

You mention 40% voting Labour, a large number I agree....but not large enough to be speaking for the majority.

You mention what you consider to be Jezza's "lifelong commitment to reducing inequality", but don't mention his appointment of a Shadow Home Secretary who has made overtly racist statements on several occasions.

You mention privatisation and underpaid public workers without acknowledging the PFI initiatives introduced and driven by Labour.

I'm more than happy to declare that I voted for an utterly imperfect Tory party, as the best of a terribly bad bunch. I realise their flaws, realise the compromises that voting for them can bring to changes I would like to see....but that's because I'm a realist, looking at a bigger picture. I am not going to re-write history and erase the grubby bits, like the left attempts to do with Labour and Corbyn, painting the terrorist sympathiser as a humanitarian messiah.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:But presumably you are cool with Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband attempting to do the same in 2010 and 2015 respectively, or the SNP doing it with the Greens in Scotland?

You'll have to direct me to the threads you started on those, as i'm sure you would have met it with equal mockery and disdain?
Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband attempting to do the same in 2010 and 2015?

2010: Was with the national Lib Dems, so would not have resulted in a dodgy financial settlement for one part of the UK. Same reason I had no criticism of the coalition which formed between LD and Conservatives. Hypothetically, had Brown or Cameron sided with BNP (if they had won seats) I would have been equally disdainful due to the BNP views, especially if they insisted on an unfair financial settlement.

2015: Ed M always ruled out a coalition with anyone. I assume you refer to the made up scaremongering myth that he'd partner with the SNP - something I never believed was the case and would have been very much against if it had happened much like the DUP deal.

Scottish Parliament; two national parties in Scotland sharing power to govern Scotland. As far as I am aware, the Greens didn't insist on bunging a chunk of money to a specific part of Scotland and tell the rest of Scotland there was no money for their healthcare or childrens' education.

I have no issue with power sharing and coalition. My gripe is with the funding unfairness due to a minor regional party signing an agreement with the national governing party. My gripe is that 18 days ago my Gran was sat in an (outsourced to Aviva) NHS ambulance for four hours without food or water going round half the county when she was just being transferred 15 miles from Cheltenham to Stroud hospital due to 'tough decisions' to cut funding to Gloucestershire NHS, and now it appears to be an easy decision to find £1 billion for Northern Ireland.

The DUP views on abortion and same-sex marriage (in contrast to the majority of NI population), creationism, climate change, and the shape of the world are concerning but of secondary concern: it remains to be seen whether Westminster can change their stance on any of these issues.
User avatar
Malabus
Posts: 13336
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 12:26
Location: The Death Star.
If it gets Corbyn away from No. 10 then it's worth every penny.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
RCS - no, I am referring to the letter written by Brown to the DUP pledging additional money for their support of his failing government, when he was seeking to form a coalition in 2010 after his disastrous tenure. I'm also referring to the additional £220m of spending pledges the Scottish Green Party elicited from the SNP in return for votes.

....so, again - can you point me to the threads you must have started?
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:You mention Hartlepool voting Labour, why not mention places like Clacton that voted Tory.

You mention 40% voting Labour, a large number I agree....but not large enough to be speaking for the majority.

You mention what you consider to be Jezza's "lifelong commitment to reducing inequality", but don't mention his appointment of a Shadow Home Secretary who has made overtly racist statements on several occasions.

You mention privatisation and underpaid public workers without acknowledging the PFI initiatives introduced and driven by Labour.

I'm more than happy to declare that I voted for an utterly imperfect Tory party, as the best of a terribly bad bunch. I realise their flaws, realise the compromises that voting for them can bring to changes I would like to see....but that's because I'm a realist, looking at a bigger picture. I am not going to re-write history and erase the grubby bits, like the left attempts to do with Labour and Corbyn, painting the terrorist sympathiser as a humanitarian messiah.
Clacton: electorate were the main beneficiaries of Thatcher (right to buy, white van man spirit) and now blame immigrants for their plight for undoing Thatcher's miracle (hence Ukip by-election win). They'll wake up soon enough.

Abbott: LOL. If I as a white person say I agree with her and that white working class racism towards minorities in the UK is rife and problematic, does that make me a racist? A few comments from someone on the receiving end of a century of societal and institutional racism aren't worth getting worked up about - an argument style straight out of the Red Pill / MRA hand-book. Check your privilege mate.

New Labour: PFI was bad and I was against it. So was Corbyn and many traditional labour supporters, hence the return of Labour support once he took power. Low wages; NHS pay cuts etc only happened since 2010.

Terrorism: He met and spoke to both sides of the conflicts in NI and Gaza/West Bank/Israel etc. He nor anyone apart from terrorists condones terrorism, but as Thatcher, Major and Blair realised, you only bring about peace in NI by understanding the grievances of both sides, treating both sides as valid, and negotiating. It is fine to agree with a cause but disagree with the means - I support a two state solution but don't support Hamas. If talking to Hamas brings about a solution, then so be it.

"I'm more than happy to declare that I voted for an utterly imperfect Tory party, as the best of a terribly bad bunch." Translation; "I know cuts to schools, disabled benefits, hostels, refuges, sure start, libraries, leisure centres, local authority services and housing are bad and have pushed millions to despair and food-banks but I'm all right Jack, so I'll opt for that ahead of someone offering something different because some media outlets and forums says he is bad"

Nor is 42% enough to speak for the majority, especially when nearly all of the remaining 58% voted for parties who are against the austerity and market-fixing oligopoly-supporting Tories.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:RCS - no, I am referring to the letter written by Brown to the DUP pledging additional money for their support of his failing government, when he was seeking to form a coalition in 2010 after his disastrous tenure. I'm also referring to the additional £220m of spending pledges the Scottish Green Party elicited from the SNP in return for votes.

....so, again - can you point me to the threads you must have started?
Brown 2010:
I was not aware of that at the time. Have seen the headline reported this week but none of the detail. Equally abominable and self-servingly grubby as the Tory deal. Further reason why Labour support crashed (I didn't vote for them in 2010 or 2015), and has re-established now a more principled leader is in charge.

£220m of spending pledges the Scottish Green Party elicited from the SNP in return for votes:
That was Scottish money being spent in Scotland on investments which benefit Scotland. Incomparable and completely different to a deal which sees money raised primarily from England, Wales, and Scotland being used only for investment in Northern Ireland which sees 2.8% of the population getting a windfall just to see a government propped up who want to continue austerity for the remaining 93%.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
Ok - swap Clacton for Middlesborough South and East Cleveland - for example.

You must be kidding on Diane Abbot, right!?! The same statements from Nigel Farage and you'd be hammering away on your keyboard. Utter double-standards.

Still - i'm very grateful that the Momentum led-left has so clearly highlighted the fact that white men are a sub-species which are a valid and acceptable target for abuse, whilst also being the root problem of all of societies issues. I'm glad I know my place.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Circa 1887 wrote:RCS - no, I am referring to the letter written by Brown to the DUP pledging additional money for their support of his failing government, when he was seeking to form a coalition in 2010 after his disastrous tenure. I'm also referring to the additional £220m of spending pledges the Scottish Green Party elicited from the SNP in return for votes.

....so, again - can you point me to the threads you must have started?
Brown 2010:
I was not aware of that at the time. Have seen the headline reported this week but none of the detail. Equally abominable and self-servingly grubby as the Tory deal. Further reason why Labour support crashed (I didn't vote for them in 2010 or 2015), and has re-established now a more principled leader is in charge.

£220m of spending pledges the Scottish Green Party elicited from the SNP in return for votes:
That was Scottish money being spent in Scotland on investments which benefit Scotland. Incomparable and completely different to a deal which sees money raised primarily from England, Wales, and Scotland being used only for investment in Northern Ireland which sees 2.8% of the population getting a windfall just to see a government propped up who want to continue austerity for the remaining 93%.
No, not incomparable. Around 8.2% of UK tax income is generated by Scotland. The Scottish Assembly are operating a deficit of around £15bn, which is funded by the UK Treasury. So factually speaking, it is not Scottish money for Scottish issues at all - you, me and the rest of the UK very much contributing to the Green Party's agenda north of the border.

That's politics, deal with it.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:Ok - swap Clacton for Middlesborough South and East Cleveland - for example.

You must be kidding on Diane Abbot, right!?! The same statements from Nigel Farage and you'd be hammering away on your keyboard. Utter double-standards.

Still - i'm very grateful that the Momentum led-left has so clearly highlighted the fact that white men are a sub-species which are a valid and acceptable target for abuse, whilst also being the root problem of all of societies issues. I'm glad I know my place.
Of course if Farage, from a position of privilege, made statements about an oppressed minority I'd be hammering away. That is how privilege and discrimination works. Top go back in time, if a slave said "white these people who allow and enable slavery are all horrible and nasty" that is fair enough.

LOL diddums; are Circa and his MRA bros having their privilege threatened? I am a white man and happy to accept that half the population are women and much of the population are not white and should be equal to me but aren't. I am still, by virtue of birth, in a position of privilege over all these people. Rather than a sub-species I am still in a huge position of power. I can walk into an interview, or walk down a street, and not face any of the prejudice or discrimination my wife faces. Until society and people like Malabus view my wife and judge her in the same terms as they do me I will always use the power and privilege you and I share to fight for her cause, rather than to fight to protect discrimination.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Circa 1887 wrote:RCS - no, I am referring to the letter written by Brown to the DUP pledging additional money for their support of his failing government, when he was seeking to form a coalition in 2010 after his disastrous tenure. I'm also referring to the additional £220m of spending pledges the Scottish Green Party elicited from the SNP in return for votes.

....so, again - can you point me to the threads you must have started?
Brown 2010:
I was not aware of that at the time. Have seen the headline reported this week but none of the detail. Equally abominable and self-servingly grubby as the Tory deal. Further reason why Labour support crashed (I didn't vote for them in 2010 or 2015), and has re-established now a more principled leader is in charge.

£220m of spending pledges the Scottish Green Party elicited from the SNP in return for votes:
That was Scottish money being spent in Scotland on investments which benefit Scotland. Incomparable and completely different to a deal which sees money raised primarily from England, Wales, and Scotland being used only for investment in Northern Ireland which sees 2.8% of the population getting a windfall just to see a government propped up who want to continue austerity for the remaining 93%.
No, not incomparable. Around 8.2% of UK tax income is generated by Scotland. The Scottish Assembly are operating a deficit of around £15bn, which is funded by the UK Treasury. So factually speaking, it is not Scottish money for Scottish issues at all - you, me and the rest of the UK very much contributing to the Green Party's agenda north of the border.

That's politics, deal with it.
Did Westminster increase Scottish funding by £220m to fund the deal? No. Nor have Westminster given Holyrood more money than proportionally granted to all devolved nations to service debt.

It is up to the devolved nation parliaments to make spending and revenue decisions as they see fit with the money they have.

Same as 2010-2015 with Lib Dems persuading Tories to slow down cuts and maintain some investment - that was a national government dealing with national spending and revenue. I have no problem with that either.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
Please explain to me how I am privileged? In your eyes does being a white male someone mean, by definition, i've received advantages in my life? If so - please tell me what they are and when I can expect to receive them, because then i'll stop working my a$$ off to build a decent life for myself and family.

I'm afraid, RCS, you are peddling left-ist propaganda. If you feel guilty for the acts of our ancestors, that's your complex - please don't force it upon me. Try walking down Severn Road, Humber Road or Avon Road and knocking on a few doors and telling those folk they're privileged.

Entitled middle-class with guilt complexes are a plague to this country.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
And i'm drawing a line there.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:Please explain to me how I am privileged? In your eyes does being a white male someone mean, by definition, i've received advantages in my life? If so - please tell me what they are and when I can expect to receive them, because then i'll stop working my a$$ off to build a decent life for myself and family.
Wow, so ignorant.

You already gave one example: you have worked your a$$ off, which is commendable. Now imagine all the interviews, meetings, etc you have been to whilst doing that. When entering the room interviewers didn't already place you a notch down for being a woman, or judge you more on appearance/attractiveness than men. When going to a meeting people expected you to contribute a lot and were keen listen to what you say, rather than expecting you to be quiet and listening more when a man restates your point. Obviously these are generalisations, but based on the experience of anywhere I have and my friends have worked. Just everyday and little cultural norms, whether in shops, garages, etc etc. If you become a good assertive manager you'll be considered a good leader, not bossy, etc etc. If I wear shorts and sleep around I won't be called a sl*t, if I wear trousers and turn down sex I won't be called frigid, etc etc.

When I walk into a social or professional situation as a white man I don't even think about my gender. I walk in, talk, listen and am confident people will listen, talk in return. Every similar situation my wife walks into she is acutely aware of her gender - are people going to listen, are people going to judge her appearance before she talks, are some people going to wonder why a woman is even there. As the privilege is something I am not even conscious of happening to me it took a lot of talking about life experiences to understand.

And you are again missing the point with your defensiveness and angry response: this is not about denigrating or placing less value on your achievements, or saying your achievements are due to privilege. They are commendable and deserved through your hard work, and recognising privilege and wanting equality is nothing to with belittling your or my achievements.

And I don't feel guilty for our ancestors, I am proud of it. Eg. I am against renaming of Colston Hall. He is a Bristol icon who built the city.

I am happy to go down Avon Road, and get one man and one woman and ask them which one has been wolf-whistled at more, which one has faced unwanted sexual advances more, which one sits on a bus seat only for the person with their legs wide apart not close them together to make room, which one gets approached first by sales assistants etc. No doubt the man will interrupt the woman and try and have 70% of the talk time. That is privilege. It is not about automatically making loads of money because you are a white man, it is about being treated and viewed differently because you are a woman.

If you think a man who wants his wife to be able to go through every day life the same way he can is a plague on society, then I am truly astonished.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
It's not defensiveness, it is frustration at your assumption that you can speak on behalf of all women, or of all ethnic minorities. That's the ever growing vanity of the left today for you. And it's irritation at your labeling and categorising of vast swathes of people you've never met as privileged or inherently prejudiced, on behalf of the people you think you're speaking for but aren't. Ignorance has nothing to do with it, it's just a cheap label you're throwing at me because I disagree with you and refuse to conform to your views.

And that really is it on this topic from me, it's painful reading your posts. Feel free to ensure you have the last word, as I know you are desperate to.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:It's not defensiveness, it is frustration at your assumption that you can speak on behalf of all women, or of all ethnic minorities. That's the ever growing vanity of the left today for you. And it's irritation at your labeling and categorising of vast swathes of people you've never met as privileged or inherently prejudiced, on behalf of the people you think you're speaking for but aren't. Ignorance has nothing to do with it, it's just a cheap label you're throwing at me because I disagree with you and refuse to conform to your views.

And that really is it on this topic from me, it's painful reading your posts. Feel free to ensure you have the last word, as I know you are desperate to.
Lol. Of course I will chip in with another word when you say things like: "your assumption that you can speak on behalf of all women, or of all ethnic minorities".

Not my assumption in the slightest!

As for a 'cheap label' and conforming to views, I just want to establish whether you are denying that women still face sexism in society or if you just don't care that they do. If the latter I'd alter my cheap labelling from ignorant to misogynist :lol: :lol:

(p.s. let me know which MRA forum you are going to post on to say how you owned a beta male SJW white knight)
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
No, sexism obviously does occur. But you talk as if it's endemic, yet relative to the rest of the world we are a very fair society. You don't dedicate any posts to the degradation of women in the middle-east or south/south-east asia, but speak as if i'm some kind of white-devil. Presumably you'd tell an middle-class Indian in New Dehli that he's privileged too? Or is he safe, because he's brown?

For the record, i'm not men's right's activist. I'm a very ordinarily person who is sick and tired of being preached to by entirely hypocritical militant left, who are lurching further and further away from reality.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Circa 1887 wrote:No, sexism obviously does occur. But you talk as if it's endemic, yet relative to the rest of the world we are a very fair society. You don't dedicate any posts to the degradation of women in the middle-east or south/south-east asia, but speak as if i'm some kind of white-devil. Presumably you'd tell an middle-class Indian in New Dehli that he's privileged too? Or is he safe, because he's brown?

For the record, i'm not men's right's activist. I'm a very ordinarily person who is sick and tired of being preached to by entirely hypocritical militant left, who are lurching further and further away from reality.
Ok ok, I will tone down my rhetoric, and sorry for my glib comment regarding you being an MRA - that was borne out of you appearing to deny the existence of male privilege and sexism in society, but you have clarified your stance. Neither do I think you are a white devil - just pointing out that I don't think a couple of comments by Abbot holds any weight against racism and sexism in the UK.

I was talking about the mainland UK, of course we are performing much much better than those places you mention. I have condemned them many times on this forum.

Of course I would tell a middle class Indian man that he is privileged- India is one of the most patriarchal and misogynistic countries in the world, as the numerous recent incidents in the news during the last few years highlight. Made worse in India by the caste system - Desi women are treated worse than anything, and you probably wouldn't be punished by the local police if you kidnapped a 16 year old Desi girl and kept her as a rape slave, such is the plight of women in the lower castes (see wiki page regarding my caste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nair" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Same goes in Saudi Arabia and similar places where women are second class citizens. And of course ISIS despise women's rights, which I have talked about many times.

Saying we are not as bad as those places is no defence though, we should aim to be the best we can be, not be satisfied with being better than the worst. This is why there has been backlash amongst liberals since both Trump (anti-abortion, anti-maternity rights, removing medical care for women) and and the DUP (anti-abortion) as they are symbols that society is happy for people who are against women's rights to be in government.

I am equally frustrated with the fanatical left (always anti-Israel, and often anti-semetic and anti-women themselves, as well as anti-business and anti-free-market) and the fanatical right (anti-anyone who stands up for minorities, women or the environment).

I would add though, that to me it looks like you are confusing left with liberal. They are not the same. You could be either a communist or neoliberal and be racist and misogynist (as per my examples above), or you could be communist or neoloiberal and be a feminist and anti-fascist. Whilst my social views are liberal (eg support feminism, LGBTQ rights, anti-fascsim, support the vulnerable, investment in NHS and social/public services) my economic views are fairly right wing (free markets, pro-business, pro-enterprise).
Last edited by RegencyCheltenhamSpa on 27 Jun 2017, 17:12, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply