• 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.

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
Can you remind me when it was that the LibDems formed a majority Government and they were therefore able to implement their policy on tuition fees?

Thats irrelevant where tuition fees are concerned seeing as she voted for the increase in tuition fees - so she didnt need to be in a majority government to implement the increase in tuition fees on students.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11971/jo_swinson/east_dunbartonshire/votes#education

The link above shows how Jo Swinson has voted on issues
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Eh?

It's three and a half years since the Brexit vote, five since Indyref1. These things didn't happen last week.



That's not what they promised, but I'm going out on a limb here and guessing you're not a LibDem. "They've lost my vote forever due to their Brexit stance" doesn't sound so good when you were never going to vote for them anyway.

The Tories' Brexit stance has cost them my vote, but as I'd rather shave with an orbital sander than vote Tory it's pretty meaningless.

"Democracy is not a one-off transaction" So if I and others don't like the outcome of the next general election we can simply say we don't respect it and have another?

The pledge was as follows “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”

Not being a student It didn't affect me in the slightest although what they did was rotten I would have thought twice about voting for them, now...no chance.
 
Last edited:

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
This is why I hate referendums. Democracy is not a one-off transaction, and one-off decisions demean democracy. Brexit is a pretty big change, too, tbf.
.

That raises another question - when will we become a true democracy ?? We will remain a shamocracy until Batty Boris or other PMs are prevented from packing the House of Lords with loads of cronies to ensure they can get legislation through that house.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
"Democracy is not a one-off transaction" So if I and others don't like the outcome of the next general election we can simply say we don't respect it and have another?
No, but you have a chance to vote them out five years later if you think the other lot would do better. If Brexit takes place, it isn't reversible without a great deal of difficulty.
That raises another question - when will we become a true democracy ?? We will remain a shamocracy until Batty Boris or other PMs are prevented from packing the House of Lords with loads of cronies to ensure they can get legislation through that house.
That's another imperfect aspect of our constitution that really needs sorting out, and which incidentally the LibDems tried to fix during the Coalition but the Tories wouldn't have it. Most democracies however do have an upper house, elected in a more democratic way but designed to act as a check and balance should the lower house seem to be taking advantage. A democratically elected House of Lords might even have felt more able to oppose Brexit because of the undemocratic aspects of the 2016 referendum.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Most likely not, they will do whatever is tax efficient which may mean less jobs, more imports from a third country.

Unlikely. Amazon don't manufacture anything here, they import it all already. The jobs (if we can call the gig economy a job) they provide are in warehousing and outsourced delivery driving.

You can't easily have your UK distribution centre outside the UK.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Yup, in five years, and less if a majority of MPs share your view.

You were saying?

Not good enough! Why should the losing side have to wait five years? They certainly have not in this case.

See how ridiculous this becomes?
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Why should the losing side have to wait five years? They certainly have not in this case.

They don't, they can call an election at any time under FTPA, or no-confidence the Government, if they command a sufficient majority.

I'll also once again point out it is now three and a half years since the Brexit vote and five since Indyref.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I think more correctly, it's the best the EU can/will offer us that fits the restrictions of all Theresa May's 'red lines'. Labour would be negotiating without all those self-imposed restrictions. It seems very plausible that would allow us to get a better deal than Theresa May's one. (Depending of course on what you regard as 'better'. Personally, I'd still prefer to stay in the EU).
The red lines steered the negotiation towards a relatively hard Brexit that would (in theory) allow the UK to diverge from EU standards. This would for example allow the UK to import food prepared to US standards, and to remove the regulation that the EU provides over workers' rights. Both of those are things that certain factions on the right might like to do. Labour would probably want to keep these but get rid of things like the EU regulations governing state aid. At the time the EU would have been happy to negotiate a deal based on any of these starting points, provided its own interests were secured which would vary depending what the starting point was. It's much less clear whether the EU would be willing to re-open negotiations now, even with a new government.

Either a Labour or the Tory government doing what I've suggested above they might want to, would probably cause the EU to see the UK as an unfair competitor and restrict imports.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Unlikely. Amazon don't manufacture anything here, they import it all already. The jobs (if we can call the gig economy a job) they provide are in warehousing and outsourced delivery driving.

You can't easily have your UK distribution centre outside the UK.

It's worthy of note that Amazon have almost no presence in Switzerland because it's just not worth it for them due to customs costs etc. They could actually well withdraw from the UK on the same basis.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
They don't, they can call an election at any time under FTPA, or no-confidence the Government, if they command a sufficient majority.

I'll also once again point out it is now three and a half years since the Brexit vote and five since Indyref.

Exactly, far too soon to be revisiting these issues.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Ah yes, one mustn't be allowed to change one's mind, that would be undemocratic.

It's certainly...enlightening...debating with Brexitists :lol:

You said it! Five years is too long IMO for numpty political parties. We should revisit the question every six months just in case we change our minds. Your logic not mine.


Wrong again! I didn't vote for Brexit,sorry pal, but it's certainly has been enlightening engaging with someone who can't accept a vote. :'(
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Wrong again! I didn't vote for Brexit,sorry pal, but it's certainly has been enlightening engaging with someone who can't accept a vote. :'(
When the vote was based on a campaign scamming the public with outright lies, and the consequences were so unclear at the time, then I make no apology for my view that it shouldn't be put into effect without further confirmation that the people are still in favour. If you take that line then the vote in 1975 should have settled the issue for all time.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

While I personally don't have much time for Amazon, Apple, Starbucks, Twitter, Facebook, Ebay and the like. The best way is for people to stop using them if they don't like them.

Its quite Ironic to see Jezza banging on about a fairer world on Twitter liked and retweeted by thousands of adoring supporters on iPhones, I think the irony is lost on many of them.

One thing I will say is these companies do create employment, there is also some better jobs, logistics, management, IT. If we are happy to lose these jobs and increase the welfare bill, lose the tax receipts we get from employees and employer NI, pensions contributions etc it seems a bit of a twisted ideology I feel. I find it amusing when people claim jobs are the wrong kind of jobs, we cant all have highly skilled well paid jobs, some cant do them, some don't want to do them. My view is its better for someone to work for their money get the pride and satisfaction of knowing they worked for and provided what they have instead of getting a hand out.

The high street may thrive again (unlikely) but people demand cheap stuff conveniently delivered, not paying £8 to park in a town centre and pay twice as much for the same item in a shop.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
So if I and others don't like the outcome of the next general election we can simply say we don't respect it and have another?

Yes. At most five years after the date of the last election. More frequently if you bother to vote in local or european elections.....................
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
When the vote was based on a campaign scamming the public with outright lies, and the consequences were so unclear at the time, then I make no apology for my view that it shouldn't be put into effect without further confirmation that the people are still in favour. If you take that line then the vote in 1975 should have settled the issue for all time.

Show me a political campaign not full of lies. Regardless of how the campaign was conducted we're all adults and can make our own informed decisions. I don't have a problem revisiting an issue with another vote but not a mere three years down the line when it's clear the establishment has dithered/pisseda since 2016 all because THEY don't want it to happen.

This is what's swung me strongly in favour of leaving, again the establishment still isn't listening to the electorate.

They will be punished for it.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Show me a political campaign not full of lies. Regardless of how the campaign was conducted we're all adults and can make our own informed decisions. I don't have a problem revisiting an issue with another vote but not a mere three years down the line when it's clear the establishment has dithered/pisseda since 2016 all because THEY don't want it to happen.

This is what's swung me strongly in favour of leaving, again the establishment still isn't listening to the electorate.

They will be punished for it.

Yeah the establishment being the Tory backbenchers like Jacob Rees Mogg who rejected Mays deal, if it had passed then Brexit would have happened 6 months ago.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
This is what's swung me strongly in favour of leaving, again the establishment still isn't listening to the electorate.
This "not listening to the electorate" line is getting old. Of a potential 46,500,00 voters (give or take), 17,411,00 voted to leave. So that is 38% of the electorate who voted to leave. (In other words, the majority of the Electorate didn't vote to leave).

And it's a fact that some portion of those people desired a "soft Brexit" (with a deal in place). Given that the Leave campaign repeatedly downplayed the idea of a hard Brexit, it isn't stretching credibility to say that 20% of those who voted for Leave wanted a soft Brexit (in reality it was probably much higher than that but nobody knows for sure). If even 10% of people who voted Leave had either voted Remain or not voted that would have swung the referendum result the other way.

Given that leaving without a deal will cause serious economic and societal damage in the short term, and has the potential to cause a generation to be poorer than they otherwise would have been, and given that there is so much uncertainty as to what the "will of the people" actually was then it is right and proper for our elected officials to act as a brake against us crashing out with no deal.

Once we have a deal on the table (either the existing one or a renegotiated one) then we - the people - should have a confirmatory vote with three options: leave without a deal, leave with this deal or remain.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Show me a political campaign not full of lies. Regardless of how the campaign was conducted we're all adults and can make our own informed decisions. I don't have a problem revisiting an issue with another vote but not a mere three years down the line when it's clear the establishment has dithered/pisseda since 2016 all because THEY don't want it to happen.

This is what's swung me strongly in favour of leaving, again the establishment still isn't listening to the electorate.

They will be punished for it.
There's a difference between broken promises and outright lies. Politicians may pledge to do something if elected but end up not doing so and make excuses, valid or otherwise. There's not much in law we can do about that.

I suggest that it's different when people say things that are demonstrably false at the time they say them, and fail to set the record straight. Two examples from the Leave campaign were the lies on the bus which the Office of National Statistics complained about, and the claim that the UK couldn't stop Turkey joining the EU which was clearly contrary to EU rules where each member has a veto over new joiners. In both cases the people making the statement either knew it to be false or were extraordinarily ill-informed. The other side pointed out the falsehood but from that source it tends to be dismissed as the usual debate that happens in a campaign. The Leavers continued to peddle the lies.

We have laws to protect the public from lies and scams in other fields, as even intelligent and educated people can fall for them sometimes and if nobody felt able to trust anybody then society would rapidly fall apart. It seems odd to me that we have no equivalent in the area of politics where the consequences can be far more wide-ranging.

I agree the establishment should be punished for not listening to the electorate. Johnson (Eton and Oxford) and Rees-Mogg (Eton and Oxford) richly deserve it for defying the will of the Parliament elected more recently than the referendum, and misleading the Queen in an attempt to silence the people's representatives.
 

Cambus731

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2013
Messages
1,121
Decided to go for the Lib Dems. They are pro HS2.
I could NEVER while I have breath in my body, vote for The Tories, after their breaking up of arguably the most efficient nationalised railway on the planet in the name of ideology. The Tories ceased being a moderate Christian Democrat style party the day that monster Thatcher became leader and they have been a vile organisation ever since.
And I'm afraid that Labour have become a basket case under Corbyn.
I have voted Green in the past, but they lost my vote due to their irrational opposition to HS2
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
Show me a political campaign not full of lies.

I believe the Remain campaign during the referendum would be a good example.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Remain campaign was perfect in that regard... I think on occasions it over-egged the economic predictions, and I wouldn't be surprised if you found the odd scattered lie in it (Osborne's punishment budget thing was definitely dodgy). But it certainly wasn't 'full of lies' in the way the Leave campaign was.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
when it's clear the establishment has dithered/pisseda since 2016 all because THEY don't want it to happen.

That's not clear at all. I would say that you're badly misrepresenting what happened. For at least about 2 years after the referendum, the Government and virtually all MPs (maybe with a few exceptions) worked on the assumption that Brexit was going to happen. Parliament accepted Article 50 being invoked, and the Government, with the approval of Parliament, conducted negotiations in order to secure Brexit. But at some point from around late 2018, it became very clear that the Government was unable to negotiate the kind of Brexit deal that the Leave campaign had kept promising would be easy. More evidence started to emerge about the Leave campaign's rule-breaking. Opinion polls started to show that the majority of the public no longer wanted to leave the EU. Then some of the hardest-Brexit supporting MPs started voting against the Government's deal - not because they wanted to Remain, but because they wanted, if anything, a harder Brexit than the one offered. And gradually so many difficulties mounted that many people became convinced that Brexit could not be delivered in the way that was promised - convincing many who had previously gone along with Brexit that another referendum was the only option - and apparently convincing the LibDems that Brexit should now be cancelled outright.

But of course, it's always easier to imagine some big conspiracy instead of looking at the (far more complicated) facts.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
This "not listening to the electorate" line is getting old. Of a potential 46,500,00 voters (give or take), 17,411,00 voted to leave. So that is 38% of the electorate who voted to leave. (In other words, the majority of the Electorate didn't vote to leave).

And it's a fact that some portion of those people desired a "soft Brexit" (with a deal in place). Given that the Leave campaign repeatedly downplayed the idea of a hard Brexit, it isn't stretching credibility to say that 20% of those who voted for Leave wanted a soft Brexit (in reality it was probably much higher than that but nobody knows for sure). If even 10% of people who voted Leave had either voted Remain or not voted that would have swung the referendum result the other way.

Given that leaving without a deal will cause serious economic and societal damage in the short term, and has the potential to cause a generation to be poorer than they otherwise would have been, and given that there is so much uncertainty as to what the "will of the people" actually was then it is right and proper for our elected officials to act as a brake against us crashing out with no deal.

Once we have a deal on the table (either the existing one or a renegotiated one) then we - the people - should have a confirmatory vote with three options: leave without a deal, leave with this deal or remain.

Complete conjecture even if it is an educated guess. A non vote is not a vote for remain, no other way to swing that i'm afraid. Bit of a desperate move that one!

Regardless of the short term issue (perceived or otherwise), leaving the EU is a long term measure and that's the way we should be thinking.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Complete conjecture even if it is an educated guess. A non vote is not a vote for remain, no other way to swing that i'm afraid. Bit of a desperate move that one!

Regardless of the short term issue (perceived or otherwise), leaving the EU is a long term measure and that's the way we should be thinking.
It doesn't prove that there is no majority for the any one of the leaving options, but it certainly suggests there is doubt about what the will of the people was in 2016. Not to mention nearly every opinion poll in the last two years. Which is all the more reason to ask for a confirmatory vote now on the specific option. As you say it is a long term measure, and not easily revocable, so it would be wrong to take such a risky move unless the public was clearly in support.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
I believe the Remain campaign during the referendum would be a good example.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Remain campaign was perfect in that regard... I think on occasions it over-egged the economic predictions, and I wouldn't be surprised if you found the odd scattered lie in it (Osborne's punishment budget thing was definitely dodgy). But it certainly wasn't 'full of lies' in the way the Leave campaign was.

:lol::lol:

That's not clear at all. I would say that you're badly misrepresenting what happened. For at least about 2 years after the referendum, the Government and virtually all MPs (maybe with a few exceptions) worked on the assumption that Brexit was going to happen. Parliament accepted Article 50 being invoked, and the Government, with the approval of Parliament, conducted negotiations in order to secure Brexit. But at some point from around late 2018, it became very clear that the Government was unable to negotiate the kind of Brexit deal that the Leave campaign had kept promising would be easy. More evidence started to emerge about the Leave campaign's rule-breaking. Opinion polls started to show that the majority of the public no longer wanted to leave the EU. Then some of the hardest-Brexit supporting MPs started voting against the Government's deal - not because they wanted to Remain, but because they wanted, if anything, a harder Brexit than the one offered. And gradually so many difficulties mounted that many people became convinced that Brexit could not be delivered in the way that was promised - convincing many who had previously gone along with Brexit that another referendum was the only option - and apparently convincing the LibDems that Brexit should now be cancelled outright.

But of course, it's always easier to imagine some big conspiracy instead of looking at the (far more complicated) facts.

It's BLINDINGLY obvious what's happening

Your allegiance to the Liberal Democrats is commendable. I hope they don't sucker punch you like they did to others in 2010. These people are going to let you down, be ready for that.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
A non vote is not a vote for remain, no other way to swing that i'm afraid.
It's also not a vote to leave, which is exactly the point - those people who didn't vote the first time around deserve to have a chance to have their voices heard now.
 
Last edited:

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,543
Location
Elginshire
Complete conjecture even if it is an educated guess. A non vote is not a vote for remain, no other way to swing that i'm afraid. Bit of a desperate move that one!

Regardless of the short term issue (perceived or otherwise), leaving the EU is a long term measure and that's the way we should be thinking.
A non-vote isn't a vote for leave, either. It's a non vote. Their views literally don't count, unless they turned up on polling day and spoiled their ballot papers. You can't assume that anyone who was registered to vote and didn't would automatically vote one way or the other. We'll never know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top