• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Poll: Potential General Election: who are you voting for?

Potential October GE: Who will you vote for?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 84 19.1%
  • Labour

    Votes: 129 29.4%
  • SNP

    Votes: 29 6.6%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 4 0.9%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 130 29.6%
  • TIG

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • DUP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • UUP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • SDLP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Green Party (or any local Green affiliate)

    Votes: 14 3.2%
  • Other independent or minor party (please state!)

    Votes: 3 0.7%
  • Spoiled ballot

    Votes: 7 1.6%
  • Not voting

    Votes: 13 3.0%
  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 24 5.5%

  • Total voters
    439
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
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.
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.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
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.

You mean the deal which was repeatedly voted down by remain parties?

And for the record, yes, I voted remain.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
You mean the deal which was repeatedly voted down by remain parties?

And for the record, yes, I voted remain.
Some remain MPs (mainly Conservative) did vote for the deal.
A lot of Leave MPs did not.

Essentially, it is wrong for the leave side to criticise the remain side for 'blocking Brexit' when they have also done so.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
Essentially, it is wrong for the leave side to criticise the remain side for 'blocking Brexit' when they have also done so.

Oh, I agree.

It's just I disagree with statements like "the leave side has had their chance".
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
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.

I know what the result was. All I did was point out you said the result of the referendum had been implemented when it hasn't, but you won't even concede that.

On top of that, you also think one of the reasons I've changed my mind on which party to vote for is invalid.

I think you're very condescending.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
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.

The point I was making was that although the local education authority are implementing the cuts it's a national policy that they are following.

Of course there will be other matters which I and others will be looking at. However it's fairly typical of MP's to point out that it's not their problem, when the policy which sets the guidance for local councils is set by national government.

If you'd prefer a different example, how about the NHS vs social care?

Local government has been limited in what they can do with regards to their budgets, whilst at the same time having to deal with a rapidly adding population which they have to provide a LOT of support for. This then impacts on the ability for the NHS to do what it needs to do, as the level of social care funding means that there's more blocked beds.

This could be easily fixed by:
- providing councils with more funding for social care
- bringing elements of social care inside the NHS and increasing the funding amounts accordingly
- having planned for the aging population and ensured that there was suitable provision
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,102
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.

There is also things which are seen so be national issues but disproportionately affect certain areas. For example my constituency produces more beer than any other constituency so when the Beer Tax Escalator was scrapped it was very popular as it meant more people drinking Beer and thus more produced and therefore more jobs in the area. Beer Duty however would to many be seen as a national issue.

Its the same with Nuclear Power Corbyn isn't very popular in West Cumbria around Sellafield because of his opposition to nuclear power again seen as a national issue but in the end result was in 2017 the area voted Conservative for the first time since 1931.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
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 know full well what's happened, so I'll rephrase it for you.

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.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
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".
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
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".

Oh for goodness sake, I've already gone over this.

As najaB was unable to do so, I'm now asking you to provide proof I said "I'm not voting for the Liberal Democrats because I think their Brexit policy is undemocratic".
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
. 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".

Unilaterally revoking A50 doesn't ignore Brexitists, any more than implementing A50 ignored the views of 16m Remain voters. Brexitists have had ample opportunity to get Brexit done. It is now perfectly reasonable to say "you've had your chance, you've failed miserably due to your own ineptitude, we're now going to move on". Democracy is not a one-off transaction.

If the LibDems win on that ticket, it'll be fair to say to Brexitists "you lost, get over it".
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
This heavily implies you consider it "undemocratic", as you borrow heavily from the Brexitist rhetoric that 17m people will be "ignored".

There's a difference between implying something and actually saying it. Try again.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
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".
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.
 

NoMorePacers

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
1,391
Location
Humberside
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.
Labour weren’t elected, so I fail to see how that was undemocratic.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
What was undemocratic was Labour's position at the last election on facilitating Brexit and then doing everything in their power to stop it.

Labour weren't elected and weren't involved in the Brexit negotiations. May deliberately excluded them and didn't address any of their issues with her deal. Perhaps if she'd compromised- as any sensible leader of a minority Government would do- we'd have had a sensible orderly Brexit by now.

So there's nothing undemocratic at all in refusing to let May push a Tory Brexit through.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
I don't think the policy is undemocratic, I just don't agree with it.

Are you happy now?

Glad to clear it up! If you don't think it undemocratic it's good to hear; disagreeing with it is fine and entireky reasonable. What I don't like is the Brexitist rhetoric about treachery.

Now I do agree with the policy. 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.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
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.

I would prefer to remain in the EU, but personally I'd rather Article 50 was revoked if another referendum indicated this was the preferred option. However, if Article 50 was revoked as a result of the Liberal Democrats being elected then fair enough, that's what was voted for.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
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.

At least I admire the honesty of the LibDems even if I disagree with their views.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
As far as I can tell, the LibDem policy is:
"If we win, we will revoke article 50 and cancel Brexit"

The qualifier is the important bit here. They most likely will not win. In that case, they will go back to campaigning for a people's vote/2nd referendum/whatever you want to call it.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but at least you know what you're voting for in that sense.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,742
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.

But would a Labour supported Brexit look anything like May's deal if they'd won the election? Why should they have to support a Tory Brexit plan that they don't like just because it has the same section title in their manifesto?

Do parties have to support the Governments plans for policing, education or the NHS? Because all of them are campaigning on increasing their resources and inching services, does that mean they're all wanting to do it the same way?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,024
Location
SE London
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.

What Labour said in its manifesto in 2017 about Theresa May's Brexit proposals was:

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.

Could you clarify how Labour was going against its manifesto when they opposed something that their manifesto said they would oppose?
 

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
1,005
Location
Chester le Street/ Edinburgh
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!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
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!

Perhaps unusually for wiki, yes it’s all accurate. Indeed it barely scratches the surface.

There is a lot of resentment towards her in the constituency. I literally do not know anyone who will vote for her this time (and I don’t live in a Guardian reading bubble!)
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
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!
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
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.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
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.

Conversely the Tories have created the cuts which have caused a lot of upset (even within very strong Tory seats) especially when the local MP says "that's an issue for the independently elected County Council" as if the cuts they are making have no direct link to national policy.

The main reason for the large scale cuts at a local level is down to social care budgets needing to do a lot more (mostly due to an aging population) which means that there's a lot less money for everything else.

National Government could have done something about this, however they haven't and so not only is it putting local government funding under more pressure it's also putting pressure on the NHS.

Threatening to take people's homes away from them isn't going to help either, as it's not uncommon for there to be a surviving spouse. An unintended consequence is that they can't afford to more house as they'll lose a load of the sale price to pay for the care provided to their spouse. This could mean that they can't move to a more suitable property and so need more social care support than they otherwise would have needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top