Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
No it wasn't, we haven't left the EU.
Because Brexitists couldn't agree on what sort of Brexit they wanted. A deal was on the table and ready to go a year ago.
They've had their chance.
No it wasn't, we haven't left the EU.
The referendum result was that we should leave, and we've started the process of leaving. It's been purely domestic political considerations that have prevented the completion of the process.No it wasn't, we haven't left the EU.
The two are not mutually exclusive.You've previously said you don't think the policy ignores those who voted to leave, and now you've just said it would alienate leave voters. Make your mind up.
Because Brexitists couldn't agree on what sort of Brexit they wanted. A deal was on the table and ready to go a year ago.
They've had their chance.
Some remain MPs (mainly Conservative) did vote for the deal.You mean the deal which was repeatedly voted down by remain parties?
And for the record, yes, I voted remain.
Essentially, it is wrong for the leave side to criticise the remain side for 'blocking Brexit' when they have also done so.
The referendum result was that we should leave, and we've started the process of leaving. It's been purely domestic political considerations that have prevented the completion of the process.
Well, you can choose who you vote for in the GE on the basis of local school bus practicalities, but personally I'll be looking at the bigger picture.
As a case study, local government are cutting school buses using national policy at by DfE.
That policy doesn't require the local government to consider national policy set out by DfT for the assessing of highway schemes. Nor does it need to consider the ability of people to get along the route with a bike (so not allowing that as an option, which is likely to increase carbon emissions by people driving - contrary to government policy) or allow parents to accompany their school aged child with a buggy (which means that younger siblings have to walk too).
Given that it's not uncommon for children aged up to 8 to have a younger sibling not at school, and whilst it's less common for those aged 8 and over it's still not that rare, that's a lot of children not at school being expected to walk up to 2 miles (siblings of those under 8) or up to 3 miles (siblings of those over 8).
The system is so messed up that although DfE encourage local educational authorities to have children from the September before they turn 5, but definitely from the start of term before they turn 5, free school transport doesn't have to be provided until the child is 5.
The result being a "safe" walking routes which are far from for for purpose, councils approving spending to improve the routes even though:
a) there is no way of assessing of the traffic volumes in the future will grow so that crossing points are then deemed unsafe, which could mean that the money is spent but not enough savings are produced before either more spending is required or the buses are reinstated
b) the DfE's consultation on the assessment of safe walking routes had just finished and it could well be that even small changes in the policy could render the improvements not suitable, meaning zero savings before the buses are reinstated.
Add to the mix a local MP who has upset a significant number of people on this matter, including those without children as any extra traffic created by children being driven to school will add to the congestion of a motorway junction which a lot of local people use.
As such local issues are important and are influenced by national policy, so are valid to vote on at a national election.
It's just I disagree with statements like "the leave side has had their chance".
If all the Brexitist MPs had voted for May's deal, it would have been passed. They had the numbers. So Brexitists have had their chance.
I disagree with people saying "oh, they've had their chance" as if the result is now irrelevant because of the amount of time that's passed since the referendum.
They've had three years to get Brexit done and haven't done it. So if someone else (say, the LibDems) stand on a ticket of unilaterally revoking Article 50, it isn't "undemocratic".
. I cannot vote for a party which, if they won the election, would simply ignore the votes of seventeen million people.
This heavily implies you consider it "undemocratic", as you borrow heavily from the Brexitist rhetoric that 17m people will be "ignored".
Nothing undomocratic about that, and if they win I will abide by the result.They've had three years to get Brexit done and haven't done it. So if someone else (say, the LibDems) stand on a ticket of unilaterally revoking Article 50, it isn't "undemocratic".
Labour weren’t elected, so I fail to see how that was undemocratic.Nothing undomocratic about that, and if they win I will abide by the result.
What was undemocratic was Labour's position at the last election on facilitating Brexit and then doing everything in their power to stop it.
There's a difference between implying something and actually saying it.
No there isn't.
Especially when- tellingly- you've not said you weren't implying it.
What was undemocratic was Labour's position at the last election on facilitating Brexit and then doing everything in their power to stop it.
I don't think the policy is undemocratic, I just don't agree with it.
Are you happy now?
Glad to clear it up!
Now I do agree with it. After three years of Brexitists bickering amongst themselves, blaming everyone else for their incompetence, I'm all in favour of letting the grown-ups have a go by tearing down A50.
That question would be better directed at the poor saps who voted for them in the expectation they would do what they said in their manifesto.Labour weren’t elected, so I fail to see how that was undemocratic.
That question would be better directed at the poor saps who voted for them in the expectation they would do what they said in their manifesto.
That question would be better directed at the poor saps who voted for them in the expectation they would do what they said in their manifesto.
LabourParty said:We will end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.
We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.
My Conservative candidate (and sitting MP*) is claiming, and I quote: “I’ve secured more regular trains between St Albans and London and the introduction of Contactless payments.” I don’t remember her sitting in the timetabling meetings between 3-7 years ago where the Thameslink timetables were discussed and decided. Nor any mention of her desire to see ‘more regular trains’. It certainly wasn’t used as criteria in the decision making process.
She’s also “been working hard to help those impacted by severe noise pollution from Luton Airport... (and) ... will continue to campaign for a full review and change to the disasatrous RNAV flight path.” That will be the RNAV flight path, introduced several years ago, that standardised the flight arrival and departure flight paths such that the number of her constituents directly overflown by aircraft (under 10,000 feet) to or from Luton has been reduced from tens of thousands to precisely zero. Meanwhile heavies and super heavies from Heathrow head directly overhead at 5-6000 feet, and no doubt she supports Heathrow expansion, being very good at toeing the Government line.
You couldn’t make it up. Except she has. Unfortunately there’s a shy majority in St Albans who still vote for her. If only the Labour and Green vote, who have no chance here now, would hold their noses and vote tactically...
*her most publicised contribution to parliamentary debate in her 14 year tenure has been about dog sh*t. You couldn’t make it up. Except she has.
Curious to find out who she is, I Googled it, what a piece of work she is, if her Wikipedia page is accurate, especially the expenses bit!
Well I can't vote labour because it's now the Communist party, and I can't vote Tory because I'd be voting in a lying flophead like Trump.
If it came to it, flophead is better because there's no SNP coalition and hopefully the preservation of the Union.
Please can we have Ed Miliband back!
I wasn’t particularly enthused by either leader, although to be fair I’m not particularly keen on these debates and would prefer to listen to what they both have to say rather than care who is “the winner”.
However I think Corbyn has a problem in that he’s not connecting well to people. Last time he wasn’t quite so much on the rack because of May’s self-destructing campaign, which thusfar isn’t repeating with Boris who like it or not is pervading a saleable message. I suspect the comments about the very poor versus the mega rich could come to haunt, as many people will think “what is Corbyn going to do for me?”. People need nuggets that they can think that they will get if they vote for a given party, Blair mastered this with the pledge card, and arguably Cameron did it in 2015. I suspect many are at the point now of having it in their mind that Labour are too much of a liability to vote for, and at present Corbyn is giving little cause for people to change their view, in fact possibly the opposite - he’s confirming their suspicions.
Barring upset caused by excessive tactical voting I’d say the momentum is more towards the Conservatives at present.