FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Can Labour Do worse than..
Can Labour Do worse than..
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country " With every consecutive term of government it is getting worse, from the conservatives to Labour I have not seen any real benefit or prosperity this group of just over 600 people have bought to the UK, all they administer is fear dillusion and dissolution every four years.   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country " You wouldn't think so but I've no confidence in any of them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country " Well they seem so close to the Tories these days that I doubt we will see much difference. Hopefully if the policies of both Labour and the Tories are valid, Labour do a better job of implementing them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour will not be able to fix everything in a day, but their new deal for working people at least sounds promising, " Although there are some things in that I can agree with, it goes way too far in other areas and will herald another 1970s style era of discontent, low productivity and high employment costs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour will not be able to fix everything in a day, but their new deal for working people at least sounds promising, Although there are some things in that I can agree with, it goes way too far in other areas and will herald another 1970s style era of discontent, low productivity and high employment costs." Why a 1970’s era and not a post-millennium era? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour will not be able to fix everything in a day, but their new deal for working people at least sounds promising, Although there are some things in that I can agree with, it goes way too far in other areas and will herald another 1970s style era of discontent, low productivity and high employment costs. Why a 1970’s era and not a post-millennium era?" Because even the most ardent Tory looks back at 1997-2010 and accepts it was better than 2010-2024  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very difficult to beat the shitshow that we have now. In an ideal world, they'll face total wipeout at the GE and they'll never get into power again, but this country unfortunately has a very short memory where the tories are concerned. Labour will not be able to fix everything in a day, but their new deal for working people at least sounds promising, and we'll hopefully get some resource put back into our public services rather than into the pockets of corrupt Rishi and his mates. That's the only reason Sunak wanted to be PM in the first place. He wanted to protect his own interests. " im sure they will drop that just like they have dropped everything else since sir keir won the leadership of the labour party | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories I fear a Labour Government more with their looney ideaologies. I won't be voting in the next election but if the very worse case for example was to happen and I had to choose, with great reluctance and fingers in my mouth I would have to vote Tories just to keep Labour out" I've asked a couple of times. Do you have an example of a "looney ideology" that Labour has? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories I fear a Labour Government more with their looney ideaologies. I won't be voting in the next election but if the very worse case for example was to happen and I had to choose, with great reluctance and fingers in my mouth I would have to vote Tories just to keep Labour out I've asked a couple of times. Do you have an example of a "looney ideology" that Labour has?" I also asked the same poster on another thread why he felt that Reform would be his go to vote of choice. I think we all need to understand how people can portray themselves on anonymous platform like this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories I fear a Labour Government more with their looney ideaologies. I won't be voting in the next election but if the very worse case for example was to happen and I had to choose, with great reluctance and fingers in my mouth I would have to vote Tories just to keep Labour out I've asked a couple of times. Do you have an example of a "looney ideology" that Labour has?" “Something something something woke” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories I fear a Labour Government more with their looney ideaologies. I won't be voting in the next election but if the very worse case for example was to happen and I had to choose, with great reluctance and fingers in my mouth I would have to vote Tories just to keep Labour out" Can you give an example of these loonie ideologies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very difficult to beat the shitshow that we have now. In an ideal world, they'll face total wipeout at the GE and they'll never get into power again, but this country unfortunately has a very short memory where the tories are concerned. Labour will not be able to fix everything in a day, but their new deal for working people at least sounds promising, and we'll hopefully get some resource put back into our public services rather than into the pockets of corrupt Rishi and his mates. That's the only reason Sunak wanted to be PM in the first place. He wanted to protect his own interests. im sure they will drop that just like they have dropped everything else since sir keir won the leadership of the labour party" The problem Labour has is tory press, and they have to play the game so that they don't rock the boat. If voting conservative is still a good idea to people when even the tory leadership is saying there needs to be fundamental change (when they've been the party in power for 14 years) then there's no helping people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem Labour has is tory press ..." The problem Labour has is their history. It's only 4 years ago that they had a leader who was proudly socialist, and was promising mass nationalisation and full employment. Now they have a new bloke who wants to be completely different, but can't seem to make his mind up on what they will be doing. It's no wonder that some people are unsure about what Labour stands for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem Labour has is tory press ... The problem Labour has is their history. It's only 4 years ago that they had a leader who was proudly socialist, and was promising mass nationalisation and full employment. Now they have a new bloke who wants to be completely different, but can't seem to make his mind up on what they will be doing. It's no wonder that some people are unsure about what Labour stands for." I don't know if you intended it or not. But you just provided evidence for the other person being correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem Labour has is tory press ... The problem Labour has is their history. It's only 4 years ago that they had a leader who was proudly socialist, and was promising mass nationalisation and full employment. Now they have a new bloke who wants to be completely different, but can't seem to make his mind up on what they will be doing. It's no wonder that some people are unsure about what Labour stands for." QED | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem Labour has is tory press ... The problem Labour has is their history. It's only 4 years ago that they had a leader who was proudly socialist, and was promising mass nationalisation and full employment. Now they have a new bloke who wants to be completely different, but can't seem to make his mind up on what they will be doing. It's no wonder that some people are unsure about what Labour stands for." Nobody's released a manifesto yet, but as aforementioned, their new deal for working people offers real and tangible change. Whenever the tories are interviewed at the moment or they're questioned about something sketchy about their failings, their response is, 'we have a plan' or 'we're sticking to the plan.' The overwhelming response at the moment according to polls and by-election results is they don't want the conservatives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When some Labour MPs believe tradespeople should use public transport to carry out work instead of driving vans just to save carbon footprint, looney idea" I dunno how often you use the tube, but there’s plenty of tradespeople on it every single day. If all you’re lugging is a toolbox, and can get equipment delivered to site it makes perfect sense. Obviously it’s not suitable for all, but that’s never going to be the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When some Labour MPs believe tradespeople should use public transport to carry out work instead of driving vans just to save carbon footprint, looney idea" Out of interest, who first announced London’s ULEZ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the other week a Labour MP suggested that dead people should be able to change their sex on their death certificate. While its not Labour policy as far as I know its just something that could happen under their Government which they likely to implement if they agree to it, looney idea" I don’t think you read that story correctly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem Labour has is tory press ..." "The problem Labour has is their history. It's only 4 years ago that they had a leader who was proudly socialist, and was promising mass nationalisation and full employment. Now they have a new bloke who wants to be completely different, but can't seem to make his mind up on what they will be doing. It's no wonder that some people are unsure about what Labour stands for." "I don't know if you intended it or not. But you just provided evidence for the other person being correct." Would you mind explaining to me how what I said proved the other guys statement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country " The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. " Why is the real test if they win a second term? Surely the real test is if they start to make improvements in this country, start working for British people instead of against us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. Why is the real test if they win a second term? Surely the real test is if they start to make improvements in this country, start working for British people instead of against us. " With so much spending committed to by the conservatives, for after the election, little turnaround can be achieved by Labour in the first term. It's a hard sell, trying to get reelected, after a term of very little getting achieved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. Why is the real test if they win a second term? Surely the real test is if they start to make improvements in this country, start working for British people instead of against us. " how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. Why is the real test if they win a second term? Surely the real test is if they start to make improvements in this country, start working for British people instead of against us. how did this government work against the people? Anything specific?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. Why is the real test if they win a second term? Surely the real test is if they start to make improvements in this country, start working for British people instead of against us. how did this government work against the people? Anything specific?" Have a quick look at the actions of the government over the last 13 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. Why is the real test if they win a second term? Surely the real test is if they start to make improvements in this country, start working for British people instead of against us. how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? Have a quick look at the actions of the government over the last 13 years. "Nothing specific then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I mean, are you a bot?? You can’t be here in order to source sex ffs - Punishing the weak & infirm for being weak & infirm - Inflicting austerity on the nation to bail out fellow eton dogshaggers -Letting a deadly virus work its way through our nan’s etc etc The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. Why is the real test if they win a second term? Surely the real test is if they start to make improvements in this country, start working for British people instead of against us. how did this government work against the people? Anything specific?" all very personal and nothing of any substance, telling really... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When some Labour MPs believe tradespeople should use public transport to carry out work instead of driving vans just to save carbon footprint, looney idea" the rates tradespeople charge ,surely they can buy a new up to date van  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the other week a Labour MP suggested that dead people should be able to change their sex on their death certificate. While its not Labour policy as far as I know its just something that could happen under their Government which they likely to implement if they agree to it, looney idea" Any loony tory policies you want to tell us about | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. Why is the real test if they win a second term? Surely the real test is if they start to make improvements in this country, start working for British people instead of against us. how did this government work against the people? Anything specific?" *cough* Brexit *cough* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck to labour, where are they are going to find the money to fund public services. Highest tax rises in 70 years has shown no improvement. Like the tories, there will be a plan, and if all fails they can say they tried but it was such a mess, not repairable " will they not have the same money that tories say they will use | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. " should ppl not just see how the first term goes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck to labour, where are they are going to find the money to fund public services. Highest tax rises in 70 years has shown no improvement. Like the tories, there will be a plan, and if all fails they can say they tried but it was such a mess, not repairable " Well probably from closing off all of the dodgy loopholes the tories have been using to protect their own interests while regular people suffer and to make things just that bit more fair for working people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. Why is the real test if they win a second term? Surely the real test is if they start to make improvements in this country, start working for British people instead of against us. how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? Have a quick look at the actions of the government over the last 13 years.
Nothing specific then? "Let's not get sidetracked from the point with less and less relevant questions. If you have some bizarre opinion that the Conservative government had our interests in mind since being in power. Maybe a new thread? Meanwhile, the way I think the real test for a hypothetical Labour government, is if they work to make Britain better for us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific?" "*cough* Brexit *cough*" Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off." You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off." Did the public want to leave the single market/customs union? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit." That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. " No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories." Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it?" No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. " Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. " I'm certain some people didn't pay attention and thought that this is what Brexit would bring. " Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum." Not entirely. I'm just agreeing with the other chap who proposed that there is an argument to suggest that Brexit is one of the things this government has done to the people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum." Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum." I would say the government were responsible for holding the referendum in the first place but not the actual result. If I recall correctly, the official government policy was to remain in the EU. It was politician's from across different parties that worked together on both sides that campaigned. Maybe you could argue that the government were not legally obliged to carry out the result but that had its own dangers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. I would say the government were responsible for holding the referendum in the first place but not the actual result. If I recall correctly, the official government policy was to remain in the EU. It was politician's from across different parties that worked together on both sides that campaigned. Maybe you could argue that the government were not legally obliged to carry out the result but that had its own dangers." Sure the government might have just avoided the referendum. But if I remember correctly, Cameron went into it assuming that remain will win. Anyway, it's a big decision and it's reasonable to expect people to make the choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? " The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific?" "*cough* Brexit *cough*" "Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off." "Did the public want to leave the single market/customs union?" Nobody knows, because the question wasn't asked. I'd have to believe that they did. Given the 3 options of a) staying in, b) leaving completely, and c) leaving the EU but keeping the customs union and remaining tied to EU regulations, I can't imagine anyone voting for option c. Those that wanted in wanted fully in, and those that wanted out wanted fully out. But getting back to my point, it's not the best example of Tories working against the interests of the populace, since the people were only asked one question, and the government gave them what they asked for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. I'm certain some people didn't pay attention and thought that this is what Brexit would bring. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Not entirely. I'm just agreeing with the other chap who proposed that there is an argument to suggest that Brexit is one of the things this government has done to the people. " It's not something the government did to people. It's something people asked and the government did for the people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible." Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. " If we are going to be in single market and custom unions, we would still be bound by EU regulations. There isn't even a point to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If we are going to be in single market and custom unions, we would still be bound by EU regulations. There isn't even a point to it. " You’re trying to take this into a different area. The government decided the nature of Brexit, they could have chosen an EFTA type arrangement which would have been less impactful whilst still delivering Brexit (that is leaving the EU) Nobody decided to do that except for the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. " If you're saying TM ruled it out and then went and won an election, then Boris won an election when he was 'all out', then we can safely say the public wanted out. You can't have it every which way  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If we are going to be in single market and custom unions, we would still be bound by EU regulations. There isn't even a point to it. You’re trying to take this into a different area. The government decided the nature of Brexit, they could have chosen an EFTA type arrangement which would have been less impactful whilst still delivering Brexit (that is leaving the EU) Nobody decided to do that except for the government. " Whatever fastandfiesty said above | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If you're saying TM ruled it out and then went and won an election, then Boris won an election when he was 'all out', then we can safely say the public wanted out. You can't have it every which way "Well in 2019 more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones - so I’m not sure your argument that the public wanted out holds any water. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If we are going to be in single market and custom unions, we would still be bound by EU regulations. There isn't even a point to it. You’re trying to take this into a different area. The government decided the nature of Brexit, they could have chosen an EFTA type arrangement which would have been less impactful whilst still delivering Brexit (that is leaving the EU) Nobody decided to do that except for the government. Whatever fastandfiesty said above " As per my response. We can’t argue that the public asked for Brexit. We can argue that the government dictated what Brexit meant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If you're saying TM ruled it out and then went and won an election, then Boris won an election when he was 'all out', then we can safely say the public wanted out. You can't have it every which way
Well in 2019 more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones - so I’m not sure your argument that the public wanted out holds any water. "You're trying to claim that not one single person voting for any other party would've voted 'clean break' if we did have a second referendum. The results were clear, 2 elections in a row were won by the party claiming to 'get Brexit done'. Nice try though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If you're saying TM ruled it out and then went and won an election, then Boris won an election when he was 'all out', then we can safely say the public wanted out. You can't have it every which way
Well in 2019 more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones - so I’m not sure your argument that the public wanted out holds any water.
You're trying to claim that not one single person voting for any other party would've voted 'clean break' if we did have a second referendum.
The results were clear, 2 elections in a row were won by the party claiming to 'get Brexit done'.
Nice try though "No, that’s you trying to put words into other people’s mouths again
The point remains that the public voted to leave the EU, and the government then decided the exact nature of how we would leave.
Anyone arguing otherwise is *undeniably* wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If we are going to be in single market and custom unions, we would still be bound by EU regulations. There isn't even a point to it. You’re trying to take this into a different area. The government decided the nature of Brexit, they could have chosen an EFTA type arrangement which would have been less impactful whilst still delivering Brexit (that is leaving the EU) Nobody decided to do that except for the government. Whatever fastandfiesty said above As per my response. We can’t argue that the public asked for Brexit. We can argue that the government dictated what Brexit meant " See those straws over there? Yes the ones you are clutching | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If we are going to be in single market and custom unions, we would still be bound by EU regulations. There isn't even a point to it. You’re trying to take this into a different area. The government decided the nature of Brexit, they could have chosen an EFTA type arrangement which would have been less impactful whilst still delivering Brexit (that is leaving the EU) Nobody decided to do that except for the government. Whatever fastandfiesty said above As per my response. We can’t argue that the public asked for Brexit. We can argue that the government dictated what Brexit meant See those straws over there? Yes the ones you are clutching "Hey, feel free to point out what I said that was incorrect. I’ll wait. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country The real test is will they win a second term? That must be the feeling of the people. And if they have done a good job. Why is the real test if they win a second term? Surely the real test is if they start to make improvements in this country, start working for British people instead of against us. how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? Have a quick look at the actions of the government over the last 13 years.
Nothing specific then?
Let's not get sidetracked from the point with less and less relevant questions.
If you have some bizarre opinion that the Conservative government had our interests in mind since being in power. Maybe a new thread?
Meanwhile, the way I think the real test for a hypothetical Labour government, is if they work to make Britain better for us."You need to keep up with yourself, I asked a question based on YOUR statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If we are going to be in single market and custom unions, we would still be bound by EU regulations. There isn't even a point to it. You’re trying to take this into a different area. The government decided the nature of Brexit, they could have chosen an EFTA type arrangement which would have been less impactful whilst still delivering Brexit (that is leaving the EU) Nobody decided to do that except for the government. Whatever fastandfiesty said above As per my response. We can’t argue that the public asked for Brexit. We can argue that the government dictated what Brexit meant See those straws over there? Yes the ones you are clutching
Hey, feel free to point out what I said that was incorrect. I’ll wait. "Most of what you said will cover it... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If we are going to be in single market and custom unions, we would still be bound by EU regulations. There isn't even a point to it. You’re trying to take this into a different area. The government decided the nature of Brexit, they could have chosen an EFTA type arrangement which would have been less impactful whilst still delivering Brexit (that is leaving the EU) Nobody decided to do that except for the government. Whatever fastandfiesty said above As per my response. We can’t argue that the public asked for Brexit. We can argue that the government dictated what Brexit meant See those straws over there? Yes the ones you are clutching
Hey, feel free to point out what I said that was incorrect. I’ll wait.
Most of what you said will cover it...
"No no, I want you to tell me where I’m wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If you're saying TM ruled it out and then went and won an election, then Boris won an election when he was 'all out', then we can safely say the public wanted out. You can't have it every which way
Well in 2019 more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones - so I’m not sure your argument that the public wanted out holds any water.
You're trying to claim that not one single person voting for any other party would've voted 'clean break' if we did have a second referendum.
The results were clear, 2 elections in a row were won by the party claiming to 'get Brexit done'.
Nice try though
No, that’s you trying to put words into other people’s mouths again
The point remains that the public voted to leave the EU, and the government then decided the exact nature of how we would leave.
Anyone arguing otherwise is *undeniably* wrong."I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth, you said "more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones". If you aren't arguing to none of those voters would've voted for a 'clean break', then what exactly is your point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If we are going to be in single market and custom unions, we would still be bound by EU regulations. There isn't even a point to it. You’re trying to take this into a different area. The government decided the nature of Brexit, they could have chosen an EFTA type arrangement which would have been less impactful whilst still delivering Brexit (that is leaving the EU) Nobody decided to do that except for the government. Whatever fastandfiesty said above As per my response. We can’t argue that the public asked for Brexit. We can argue that the government dictated what Brexit meant See those straws over there? Yes the ones you are clutching
Hey, feel free to point out what I said that was incorrect. I’ll wait.
Most of what you said will cover it...
No no, I want you to tell me where I’m wrong. "You are wrong about the government being responsible brexit, the people of the UK decided they wanted brexit. You are always wrong about brexit to be fair, you know that though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If we are going to be in single market and custom unions, we would still be bound by EU regulations. There isn't even a point to it. You’re trying to take this into a different area. The government decided the nature of Brexit, they could have chosen an EFTA type arrangement which would have been less impactful whilst still delivering Brexit (that is leaving the EU) Nobody decided to do that except for the government. Whatever fastandfiesty said above As per my response. We can’t argue that the public asked for Brexit. We can argue that the government dictated what Brexit meant See those straws over there? Yes the ones you are clutching
Hey, feel free to point out what I said that was incorrect. I’ll wait.
Most of what you said will cover it...
No no, I want you to tell me where I’m wrong.
You are wrong about the government being responsible brexit, the people of the UK decided they wanted brexit. You are always wrong about brexit to be fair, you know that though."Were you asked if you wanted to leave the customs union or single market? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If you're saying TM ruled it out and then went and won an election, then Boris won an election when he was 'all out', then we can safely say the public wanted out. You can't have it every which way
Well in 2019 more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones - so I’m not sure your argument that the public wanted out holds any water.
You're trying to claim that not one single person voting for any other party would've voted 'clean break' if we did have a second referendum.
The results were clear, 2 elections in a row were won by the party claiming to 'get Brexit done'.
Nice try though
No, that’s you trying to put words into other people’s mouths again
The point remains that the public voted to leave the EU, and the government then decided the exact nature of how we would leave.
Anyone arguing otherwise is *undeniably* wrong.
I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth, you said "more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones".
If you aren't arguing to none of those voters would've voted for a 'clean break', then what exactly is your point?
"I stated a fact in response to your claim that Johnson’s victory was a clear display of support for Brexit by the public. If that were the case, why did more people support second referendum backing parties than Brexit ones? Is it because you can’t apply referendum logic to a general election? Because I’d agree with that - but then why raise it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. I'm certain some people didn't pay attention and thought that this is what Brexit would bring. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Not entirely. I'm just agreeing with the other chap who proposed that there is an argument to suggest that Brexit is one of the things this government has done to the people. It's not something the government did to people. It's something people asked and the government did for the people." ...based on a big bag of lies. I'm not saying it was entirely the fault of the current government. But to lots of people, they bear some of the responsibility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If you're saying TM ruled it out and then went and won an election, then Boris won an election when he was 'all out', then we can safely say the public wanted out. You can't have it every which way
Well in 2019 more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones - so I’m not sure your argument that the public wanted out holds any water.
You're trying to claim that not one single person voting for any other party would've voted 'clean break' if we did have a second referendum.
The results were clear, 2 elections in a row were won by the party claiming to 'get Brexit done'.
Nice try though
No, that’s you trying to put words into other people’s mouths again
The point remains that the public voted to leave the EU, and the government then decided the exact nature of how we would leave.
Anyone arguing otherwise is *undeniably* wrong.
I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth, you said "more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones".
If you aren't arguing to none of those voters would've voted for a 'clean break', then what exactly is your point?
I stated a fact in response to your claim that Johnson’s victory was a clear display of support for Brexit by the public. If that were the case, why did more people support second referendum backing parties than Brexit ones?
Is it because you can’t apply referendum logic to a general election? Because I’d agree with that - but then why raise it? "I didn't say Johnsons victory, I said 2 in a row. Are you still attempting to claim that no one voting for those other parties would've voted 'clean break' in a second referendum? You started this off with: "Did the public want to leave the single market/customs union?" The answer is you don't have a clue but are trying to argue otherwise, nothing new there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If you're saying TM ruled it out and then went and won an election, then Boris won an election when he was 'all out', then we can safely say the public wanted out. You can't have it every which way
Well in 2019 more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones - so I’m not sure your argument that the public wanted out holds any water.
You're trying to claim that not one single person voting for any other party would've voted 'clean break' if we did have a second referendum.
The results were clear, 2 elections in a row were won by the party claiming to 'get Brexit done'.
Nice try though
No, that’s you trying to put words into other people’s mouths again
The point remains that the public voted to leave the EU, and the government then decided the exact nature of how we would leave.
Anyone arguing otherwise is *undeniably* wrong.
I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth, you said "more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones".
If you aren't arguing to none of those voters would've voted for a 'clean break', then what exactly is your point?
I stated a fact in response to your claim that Johnson’s victory was a clear display of support for Brexit by the public. If that were the case, why did more people support second referendum backing parties than Brexit ones?
Is it because you can’t apply referendum logic to a general election? Because I’d agree with that - but then why raise it?
I didn't say Johnsons victory, I said 2 in a row. Are you still attempting to claim that no one voting for those other parties would've voted 'clean break' in a second referendum?
You started this off with:
"Did the public want to leave the single market/customs union?"
The answer is you don't have a clue but are trying to argue otherwise, nothing new there "No, I don’t have a clue - but the point is that the government *decided* what Brexit meant. They made the decision, not the public. Glad we cleared that up in the end. I had assumed you understood the conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how did this government work against the people? Anything specific? *cough* Brexit *cough* Not the best example. They did ask the people what they wanted, and of those that could be bothered to respond, the (only just) majority said yes please. So that's a policy where the government worked to give the people what they wanted. I'm sure you can come up with better examples of where the Tory government has done something that clearly makes the majority worse off. You could argue that those who currently occupy the upper echelons of the Tory party were those who told people to vote for Brexit, which they did, making them worse off. You could argue that Cameron promised a referendum assuming people wouldn't be silly enough to vote against their own interests. There's a decent argument to be made that the government are responsible for Brexit. That's some mental gymnastics you are doing there. Government asked people to vote for Brexit. People voted. Hence government was responsible for Brexit. It's almost as if people didn't have free will and were forced to vote at gun point. No but they voted based on a bunch of bullshit fed to them by the leaves campaigns, and by most of the current top tier Tories. Do you know exactly why every individual voted for it? No, of course some people might have seen through the bullshit, and voted for us all to be worse off anyway. Or some might have been billionaires that wanted to avoid paying taxes. There are of course some outliers. Or maybe.. Just maybe.. Some people valued different things... Some people valued long term strategy.. Some people valued sovereignty.. Either way, no one knows clearly. The whole point of a referendum was to give people the responsibility to choose. You can't then go back and say it was the government that is responsible for the outcome of the referendum. Did the government decide the exact nature of Brexit? The government negotiated with EU to figure out what's feasible. Let’s not rewrite history here - Theresa May ruled out single market and customs union membership before negotiations commenced. If you're saying TM ruled it out and then went and won an election, then Boris won an election when he was 'all out', then we can safely say the public wanted out. You can't have it every which way
Well in 2019 more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones - so I’m not sure your argument that the public wanted out holds any water.
You're trying to claim that not one single person voting for any other party would've voted 'clean break' if we did have a second referendum.
The results were clear, 2 elections in a row were won by the party claiming to 'get Brexit done'.
Nice try though
No, that’s you trying to put words into other people’s mouths again
The point remains that the public voted to leave the EU, and the government then decided the exact nature of how we would leave.
Anyone arguing otherwise is *undeniably* wrong.
I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth, you said "more people voted for second referendum backing parties than did for Brexit backing ones".
If you aren't arguing to none of those voters would've voted for a 'clean break', then what exactly is your point?
I stated a fact in response to your claim that Johnson’s victory was a clear display of support for Brexit by the public. If that were the case, why did more people support second referendum backing parties than Brexit ones?
Is it because you can’t apply referendum logic to a general election? Because I’d agree with that - but then why raise it?
I didn't say Johnsons victory, I said 2 in a row. Are you still attempting to claim that no one voting for those other parties would've voted 'clean break' in a second referendum?
You started this off with:
"Did the public want to leave the single market/customs union?"
The answer is you don't have a clue but are trying to argue otherwise, nothing new there
No, I don’t have a clue - but the point is that the government *decided* what Brexit meant. They made the decision, not the public.
Glad we cleared that up in the end. I had assumed you understood the conversation."Lose the condescension and narcissistic tones mate, it's getting really fucking boring. You may be right on the Govt deciding, you're not right on it not being the same choice as the public. You've just confirmed that yourself. Sometimes you just need to take a step back and read what you're writing before posting it or you end up looking like a tit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the slow of thinking, I hope this clarifies the situation about the government deciding to enact ‘their’ Brexit: The people voted to leave the EU - unarguable." Accurate. Good so far. "The government then chose the Brexit that we ended up with. In an alternate universe, the govt elect to have an EFTA type arrangement and remain in the customs union and single market. In another universe the govt elects to go ‘no deal’ and accepts that ensuing chaos. In *all three* of those examples the public’s vote would have been respected (that is to leave the EU)." Accurate. Things could have been done differently. "The difference is decisions made by the government, not by the public." Still accurate, the government chose the final form of Brexit But all of that accuracy is irrelevant, because you were arguing that 'hard Brexit' is not what the people wanted, and none of the facts above prove that. We've already agreed that the people weren't asked, so we can't know what they thought. I've outlined my reasoning for believing that those who voted for Brexit would have also voted for leaving the Customs Union. You've not said anything that contradicts that, or gives another theory, you've just gone off on a tangent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the slow of thinking, I hope this clarifies the situation about the government deciding to enact ‘their’ Brexit: The people voted to leave the EU - unarguable. Accurate. Good so far. The government then chose the Brexit that we ended up with. In an alternate universe, the govt elect to have an EFTA type arrangement and remain in the customs union and single market. In another universe the govt elects to go ‘no deal’ and accepts that ensuing chaos. In *all three* of those examples the public’s vote would have been respected (that is to leave the EU). Accurate. Things could have been done differently. The difference is decisions made by the government, not by the public. Still accurate, the government chose the final form of Brexit But all of that accuracy is irrelevant, because you were arguing that 'hard Brexit' is not what the people wanted, and none of the facts above prove that. We've already agreed that the people weren't asked, so we can't know what they thought. I've outlined my reasoning for believing that those who voted for Brexit would have also voted for leaving the Customs Union. You've not said anything that contradicts that, or gives another theory, you've just gone off on a tangent." I’ve not argued that hard Brexit wasn’t what the public wanted - though I suspect that only a minority did. This thread is about when government has made a decision that has negatively impacted the public. And Brexit did just that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve not argued that hard Brexit wasn’t what the public wanted - though I suspect that only a minority did. This thread is about when government has made a decision that has negatively impacted the public. And Brexit did just that. " For the third time, it's a poor example. As the discussion above shows, you suspect that only a few people would have wanted a hard Brexit, but others think very differently. That makes Brexit a bad example of a thing that has been imposed upon us by an unfeeling government. It works in your head, but it doesn't in the heads of the people that you are trying to communicate with. Why keep using it when there are so many other examples of the Tories treating us badly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve not argued that hard Brexit wasn’t what the public wanted - though I suspect that only a minority did. This thread is about when government has made a decision that has negatively impacted the public. And Brexit did just that. For the third time, it's a poor example. As the discussion above shows, you suspect that only a few people would have wanted a hard Brexit, but others think very differently. That makes Brexit a bad example of a thing that has been imposed upon us by an unfeeling government. It works in your head, but it doesn't in the heads of the people that you are trying to communicate with. Why keep using it when there are so many other examples of the Tories treating us badly?" I use it because it’s an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is like watching a therapy session that goes on and on, but the patient never finds what they are looking for" Did you want to point out what I said that was incorrect? Because, you know, I’m still waiting. You waded in accusing me of clutching at straws, when on actual fact (as backed up by another poster) everything I said is entirely accurate re: Brexit. You’ve persistently sniped rather than respond when I’ve simply asked you what I’ve said was incorrect. So it’s time to put your big boy pants on now - tell me what of the below is incorrect: The people voted to leave the EU - unarguable. The government then chose the Brexit that we ended up with. In an alternate universe, the govt elect to have an EFTA type arrangement and remain in the customs union and single market. In another universe the govt elects to go ‘no deal’ and accepts that ensuing chaos. In *all three* of those examples the public’s vote would have been respected (that is to leave the EU). - The difference is decisions made by the government, not by the public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is like watching a therapy session that goes on and on, but the patient never finds what they are looking for Did you want to point out what I said that was incorrect? Because, you know, I’m still waiting. You waded in accusing me of clutching at straws, when on actual fact (as backed up by another poster) everything I said is entirely accurate re: Brexit. You’ve persistently sniped rather than respond when I’ve simply asked you what I’ve said was incorrect. So it’s time to put your big boy pants on now - tell me what of the below is incorrect: The people voted to leave the EU - unarguable. The government then chose the Brexit that we ended up with. In an alternate universe, the govt elect to have an EFTA type arrangement and remain in the customs union and single market. In another universe the govt elects to go ‘no deal’ and accepts that ensuing chaos. In *all three* of those examples the public’s vote would have been respected (that is to leave the EU). - The difference is decisions made by the government, not by the public. " I'd argue the decision was made by the people voting in May (ish) and then Boris. And tbf to the Tories they were open about the way they would exit. I guess one may argue the Tories didn't have a majority rule, but then all policies become fair game. I'd support a view that the majority probably wouldn't have chosen the flavour we had. If likely agree that the majority may have chosen to stay in if the choice was remain or this version. But I struggle to put that on the Tory plate. It's a combo of a question that was essentially "do you want lasagna for tea, or something else" followed by a load of endowment effect whereby people became convinced they had to vote for mutton stew because they could go back on saying no to lasagna. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is like watching a therapy session that goes on and on, but the patient never finds what they are looking for"
People will keep trying to find the elusive upside to Brexit. But you're right. They'll never find it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is like watching a therapy session that goes on and on, but the patient never finds what they are looking for
People will keep trying to find the elusive upside to Brexit. But you're right. They'll never find it."It’s not even about upside now when you have people who seem to deny that the tories had any involvement in deciding the nature of Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why keep using it when there are so many other examples of the Tories treating us badly?" "I use it because it’s an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public." But you weren't using it for that. You were using it as an answer to the question "how did this government work against the people?". As I've said multiple times now, it's a poor answer to that question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why keep using it when there are so many other examples of the Tories treating us badly? I use it because it’s an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public. But you weren't using it for that. You were using it as an answer to the question "how did this government work against the people?". As I've said multiple times now, it's a poor answer to that question." The government did impact assessments on a variety of Brexit ‘types’ - which means they knew that there were less damaging versions of Brexit. (This was well publicised at the time). You may not accept it as a good answer, that’s entirely up to you, and I’m not sure I could convince you otherwise. At least you’re gracious enough to accept that what I’ve said is correct | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is like watching a therapy session that goes on and on, but the patient never finds what they are looking for" "Did you want to point out what I said that was incorrect? Because, you know, I’m still waiting. You waded in accusing me of clutching at straws, when on actual fact (as backed up by another poster) everything I said is entirely accurate re: Brexit." Oh no, you don't get to use my post to attack someone else. What I said was that all of the words you were using were accurate, but your post in its entirety was misleading as you weren't addressing the question asked. The other poster is right that you are clutching at straws. You are desperately trying to shift focus away from what you originally said so that you can claim a 'win'. Bad form. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is like watching a therapy session that goes on and on, but the patient never finds what they are looking for Did you want to point out what I said that was incorrect? Because, you know, I’m still waiting. You waded in accusing me of clutching at straws, when on actual fact (as backed up by another poster) everything I said is entirely accurate re: Brexit. Oh no, you don't get to use my post to attack someone else. What I said was that all of the words you were using were accurate, but your post in its entirety was misleading as you weren't addressing the question asked. The other poster is right that you are clutching at straws. You are desperately trying to shift focus away from what you originally said so that you can claim a 'win'. Bad form." Oh my bad, I forgot how everyone on here knows what other people meant when they weren’t the ones to say it. I’ve reread my posts throughout this thread. Guess what? I’ve not shifted focus at all. This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least you’re gracious enough to accept that what I’ve said is correct" You don't get to do that either. Claiming that I've accepted that all of your posts in this thread are correct. No, no, no. What I said is that one of your posts was factually correct, but misleading when used in this discussion. As a whole, you've been disingenuous to the extreme in this thread, and now you're making it worse by pretending that my words were an endorsement of you. Stop it now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least you’re gracious enough to accept that what I’ve said is correct You don't get to do that either. Claiming that I've accepted that all of your posts in this thread are correct. No, no, no. What I said is that one of your posts was factually correct, but misleading when used in this discussion. As a whole, you've been disingenuous to the extreme in this thread, and now you're making it worse by pretending that my words were an endorsement of you. Stop it now." It’s alright, I’m gonna tap out now, because this thread (and frankly this whole politics forum) is a cesspit of unmanageable idiocy. I thought Morley was thick but I fear the average intelligence actually dropped when he left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve reread my posts throughout this thread. Guess what? I’ve not shifted focus at all." Go re-read them again. At the start you brought up Brexit as an answer to the question "how did this government work against the people". By the end you were claiming that you brought it up as an example of "an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public". Those are very different things, and I don't believe that you can't see the difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve reread my posts throughout this thread. Guess what? I’ve not shifted focus at all. Go re-read them again. At the start you brought up Brexit as an answer to the question "how did this government work against the people". By the end you were claiming that you brought it up as an example of "an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public". Those are very different things, and I don't believe that you can't see the difference." You’re right, I should have phrased it differently. ‘The Brexit chosen is a clear example of the government working against the public by making a decision which isn’t in their best interests’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to the original question, can Labour do worse that the Tories? I'm guessing that the train drivers' strike will still be on by the time Labour gets into power. Given the amount of vocal support they've given the unions, they'll have to accede to the demands. Will any other unions suddenly decide that they have been left out of negotiations for too long and start their own strike?" If Labour have any sense they’ll allow TOCS to negotiate with ASLEF, as has happened since the start of privatisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve reread my posts throughout this thread. Guess what? I’ve not shifted focus at all." "Go re-read them again. At the start you brought up Brexit as an answer to the question "how did this government work against the people". By the end you were claiming that you brought it up as an example of "an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public". Those are very different things, and I don't believe that you can't see the difference." "You’re right, I should have phrased it differently. ‘The Brexit chosen is a clear example of the government working against the public by making a decision which isn’t in their best interests’" I thought you'd gone. But since you're still here and trying a new angle, I'll say it again. It's a really poor example. As several people have said above, it's not at all clear whether people wanted a hard Brexit or not. I think they did, you think they didn't. Everyone (including you) agrees that they weren't asked, so we can't know. Why the hell are you trying desperately to win this argument, when you know that you're wrong? As I've also said several times, just pick another of the things that the Tories have done that has disadvantaged the populace. You can't be short of examples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If Labour have any sense they’ll allow TOCS to negotiate with ASLEF, as has happened since the start of privatisation." Why would they do that? Labour have already said that they are going to re-nationalise all the railways. What incentive do the TOCs have to come to an agreement if the problem is going to go away by itself in a relatively short time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve reread my posts throughout this thread. Guess what? I’ve not shifted focus at all. Go re-read them again. At the start you brought up Brexit as an answer to the question "how did this government work against the people". By the end you were claiming that you brought it up as an example of "an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public". Those are very different things, and I don't believe that you can't see the difference. You’re right, I should have phrased it differently. ‘The Brexit chosen is a clear example of the government working against the public by making a decision which isn’t in their best interests’ I thought you'd gone. But since you're still here and trying a new angle, I'll say it again. It's a really poor example. As several people have said above, it's not at all clear whether people wanted a hard Brexit or not. I think they did, you think they didn't. Everyone (including you) agrees that they weren't asked, so we can't know. Why the hell are you trying desperately to win this argument, when you know that you're wrong? As I've also said several times, just pick another of the things that the Tories have done that has disadvantaged the populace. You can't be short of examples." Narcissistic, I said it above. So far, I'm being proven correct | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve reread my posts throughout this thread. Guess what? I’ve not shifted focus at all. Go re-read them again. At the start you brought up Brexit as an answer to the question "how did this government work against the people". By the end you were claiming that you brought it up as an example of "an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public". Those are very different things, and I don't believe that you can't see the difference. You’re right, I should have phrased it differently. ‘The Brexit chosen is a clear example of the government working against the public by making a decision which isn’t in their best interests’ I thought you'd gone. But since you're still here and trying a new angle, I'll say it again. It's a really poor example. As several people have said above, it's not at all clear whether people wanted a hard Brexit or not. I think they did, you think they didn't. Everyone (including you) agrees that they weren't asked, so we can't know. Why the hell are you trying desperately to win this argument, when you know that you're wrong? As I've also said several times, just pick another of the things that the Tories have done that has disadvantaged the populace. You can't be short of examples." *sigh* I see now where you’ve misunderstood. Even if the whole country wanted a hard Brexit except for me, pursuing Brexit as they did was still an example of the government working against the interests of the public - as the impact assessments revealed. What you want and what is in your interests are not necessarily the same thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If Labour have any sense they’ll allow TOCS to negotiate with ASLEF, as has happened since the start of privatisation. Why would they do that? Labour have already said that they are going to re-nationalise all the railways. What incentive do the TOCs have to come to an agreement if the problem is going to go away by itself in a relatively short time?" They would do that to prevent the strikes, because nationalisation isn’t going to happen in a relatively short time - it’ll take years waiting for contracts to expire. My TOC has a deal ready to put to ASLEF. They’re not allowed to do so at present, thanks to the DFT. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. " You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the slow of thinking, I hope this clarifies the situation about the government deciding to enact ‘their’ Brexit: The people voted to leave the EU - unarguable. The government then chose the Brexit that we ended up with. In an alternate universe, the govt elect to have an EFTA type arrangement and remain in the customs union and single market. In another universe the govt elects to go ‘no deal’ and accepts that ensuing chaos. In *all three* of those examples the public’s vote would have been respected (that is to leave the EU). - The difference is decisions made by the government, not by the public. " . Regardless of how you want to present it the government simply implemented what people wanted. Those who believe in democracy did not complain about their actions . To put it simply as acknowledged by your post the electorate voted to leave . The government then put in process the mechanism to leave. However those who did not believe in democracy attempted to obstruct the process at every stage. Luckily for those who believe in democracy Boris Johnson was elected with a massive majority and was able to put the wishes of the electorate into action . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the slow of thinking, I hope this clarifies the situation about the government deciding to enact ‘their’ Brexit: The people voted to leave the EU - unarguable. The government then chose the Brexit that we ended up with. In an alternate universe, the govt elect to have an EFTA type arrangement and remain in the customs union and single market. In another universe the govt elects to go ‘no deal’ and accepts that ensuing chaos. In *all three* of those examples the public’s vote would have been respected (that is to leave the EU). - The difference is decisions made by the government, not by the public. . Regardless of how you want to present it the government simply implemented what people wanted. Those who believe in democracy did not complain about their actions . To put it simply as acknowledged by your post the electorate voted to leave . The government then put in process the mechanism to leave. However those who did not believe in democracy attempted to obstruct the process at every stage. Luckily for those who believe in democracy Boris Johnson was elected with a massive majority and was able to put the wishes of the electorate into action . " This isn’t a debate about whether we voted to leave or not. We did, and we left. But the government decided the manner in which we would leave. Given polling now, it seems that the majority of the public think the government did a bad job, but that’s not relevant. Just poignant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they!" No, I mean this place is full of people (you included, at times) who read what you want to read before deciding what you thought a post said, rather than what it said
You’ve already demonstrated once in this thread that you didn’t understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they!" Indeed your very first post in response to me was incorrect. At that point you handed over to others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve reread my posts throughout this thread. Guess what? I’ve not shifted focus at all. Go re-read them again. At the start you brought up Brexit as an answer to the question "how did this government work against the people". By the end you were claiming that you brought it up as an example of "an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public". Those are very different things, and I don't believe that you can't see the difference. You’re right, I should have phrased it differently. ‘The Brexit chosen is a clear example of the government working against the public by making a decision which isn’t in their best interests’ I thought you'd gone. But since you're still here and trying a new angle, I'll say it again. It's a really poor example. As several people have said above, it's not at all clear whether people wanted a hard Brexit or not. I think they did, you think they didn't. Everyone (including you) agrees that they weren't asked, so we can't know. Why the hell are you trying desperately to win this argument, when you know that you're wrong? As I've also said several times, just pick another of the things that the Tories have done that has disadvantaged the populace. You can't be short of examples. *sigh* I see now where you’ve misunderstood. Even if the whole country wanted a hard Brexit except for me, pursuing Brexit as they did was still an example of the government working against the interests of the public - as the impact assessments revealed. What you want and what is in your interests are not necessarily the same thing. " . How could Brexit work against the interests of the public? Do you ever read any published accounts of companies ? Refer to the directors reports and Brexit rarely if ever gets a mention. Life has moved on , the important issues are world energy prices and the war in Ukraine. The government have little control over these matters . UK hauliers involved in continental haulage have actually benefitted from Brexit. On a simplistic basis we still trade with all of the EU but have the added advantage the we can now negotiate our own free trade agreements with other countries. It is difficult to see how on a long term basis Brexit could do any damage to the UK economy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve reread my posts throughout this thread. Guess what? I’ve not shifted focus at all. Go re-read them again. At the start you brought up Brexit as an answer to the question "how did this government work against the people". By the end you were claiming that you brought it up as an example of "an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public". Those are very different things, and I don't believe that you can't see the difference. You’re right, I should have phrased it differently. ‘The Brexit chosen is a clear example of the government working against the public by making a decision which isn’t in their best interests’ I thought you'd gone. But since you're still here and trying a new angle, I'll say it again. It's a really poor example. As several people have said above, it's not at all clear whether people wanted a hard Brexit or not. I think they did, you think they didn't. Everyone (including you) agrees that they weren't asked, so we can't know. Why the hell are you trying desperately to win this argument, when you know that you're wrong? As I've also said several times, just pick another of the things that the Tories have done that has disadvantaged the populace. You can't be short of examples. *sigh* I see now where you’ve misunderstood. Even if the whole country wanted a hard Brexit except for me, pursuing Brexit as they did was still an example of the government working against the interests of the public - as the impact assessments revealed. What you want and what is in your interests are not necessarily the same thing. . How could Brexit work against the interests of the public? Do you ever read any published accounts of companies ? Refer to the directors reports and Brexit rarely if ever gets a mention. Life has moved on , the important issues are world energy prices and the war in Ukraine. The government have little control over these matters . UK hauliers involved in continental haulage have actually benefitted from Brexit. On a simplistic basis we still trade with all of the EU but have the added advantage the we can now negotiate our own free trade agreements with other countries. It is difficult to see how on a long term basis Brexit could do any damage to the UK economy " How I *know* you’re trolling | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the slow of thinking, I hope this clarifies the situation about the government deciding to enact ‘their’ Brexit: The people voted to leave the EU - unarguable. The government then chose the Brexit that we ended up with. In an alternate universe, the govt elect to have an EFTA type arrangement and remain in the customs union and single market. In another universe the govt elects to go ‘no deal’ and accepts that ensuing chaos. In *all three* of those examples the public’s vote would have been respected (that is to leave the EU). - The difference is decisions made by the government, not by the public. . Regardless of how you want to present it the government simply implemented what people wanted. Those who believe in democracy did not complain about their actions . To put it simply as acknowledged by your post the electorate voted to leave . The government then put in process the mechanism to leave. However those who did not believe in democracy attempted to obstruct the process at every stage. Luckily for those who believe in democracy Boris Johnson was elected with a massive majority and was able to put the wishes of the electorate into action . This isn’t a debate about whether we voted to leave or not. We did, and we left. But the government decided the manner in which we would leave. Given polling now, it seems that the majority of the public think the government did a bad job, but that’s not relevant. Just poignant." .So do people now need to seek your permission as to whether they are allowed to comment on a bebate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! No, I mean this place is full of people (you included, at times) who read what you want to read before deciding what you thought a post said, rather than what it said
You’ve already demonstrated once in this thread that you didn’t understand."Lol.. If I remember the debate about socialism, you were the one who did that. When I asked multiple questions pointing out the flaws in your arguments, you never answered or engaged with those questions. We were repeatedly telling you that no country ever achieved ideological purity either with capitalism or socialism and hence that's not a base requirement to criticise them, you were repeatedly parroting the same line, "socialism is.... yada yada yada..." and lecturing us to read more when you proved that you didn't even know the difference between socialism and communism. The same is happening in this thread. Multiple people attempting to explain that you are arguing about the wrong thing(which is what a strawman is). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve reread my posts throughout this thread. Guess what? I’ve not shifted focus at all. Go re-read them again. At the start you brought up Brexit as an answer to the question "how did this government work against the people". By the end you were claiming that you brought it up as an example of "an easily recognised example of govt making a decision on behalf of the public". Those are very different things, and I don't believe that you can't see the difference. You’re right, I should have phrased it differently. ‘The Brexit chosen is a clear example of the government working against the public by making a decision which isn’t in their best interests’ I thought you'd gone. But since you're still here and trying a new angle, I'll say it again. It's a really poor example. As several people have said above, it's not at all clear whether people wanted a hard Brexit or not. I think they did, you think they didn't. Everyone (including you) agrees that they weren't asked, so we can't know. Why the hell are you trying desperately to win this argument, when you know that you're wrong? As I've also said several times, just pick another of the things that the Tories have done that has disadvantaged the populace. You can't be short of examples. *sigh* I see now where you’ve misunderstood. Even if the whole country wanted a hard Brexit except for me, pursuing Brexit as they did was still an example of the government working against the interests of the public - as the impact assessments revealed. What you want and what is in your interests are not necessarily the same thing. . How could Brexit work against the interests of the public? Do you ever read any published accounts of companies ? Refer to the directors reports and Brexit rarely if ever gets a mention. Life has moved on , the important issues are world energy prices and the war in Ukraine. The government have little control over these matters . UK hauliers involved in continental haulage have actually benefitted from Brexit. On a simplistic basis we still trade with all of the EU but have the added advantage the we can now negotiate our own free trade agreements with other countries. It is difficult to see how on a long term basis Brexit could do any damage to the UK economy "
You're the only person who seems to get away with the brutal piss taking of Brexit voters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! Indeed your very first post in response to me was incorrect. At that point you handed over to others "Which part of it was incorrect? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the slow of thinking, I hope this clarifies the situation about the government deciding to enact ‘their’ Brexit: The people voted to leave the EU - unarguable. The government then chose the Brexit that we ended up with. In an alternate universe, the govt elect to have an EFTA type arrangement and remain in the customs union and single market. In another universe the govt elects to go ‘no deal’ and accepts that ensuing chaos. In *all three* of those examples the public’s vote would have been respected (that is to leave the EU). - The difference is decisions made by the government, not by the public. . Regardless of how you want to present it the government simply implemented what people wanted. Those who believe in democracy did not complain about their actions . To put it simply as acknowledged by your post the electorate voted to leave . The government then put in process the mechanism to leave. However those who did not believe in democracy attempted to obstruct the process at every stage. Luckily for those who believe in democracy Boris Johnson was elected with a massive majority and was able to put the wishes of the electorate into action . This isn’t a debate about whether we voted to leave or not. We did, and we left. But the government decided the manner in which we would leave. Given polling now, it seems that the majority of the public think the government did a bad job, but that’s not relevant. Just poignant..So do people now need to seek your permission as to whether they are allowed to comment on a bebate " This isn’t a Brexit debate - this is a government debate. The exact nature of Brexit was a decision made by government, hence its inclusion. If you want to persist in pretending that Brexit was a good idea (you’re one of 9-12%) then feel free to start a thread lauding its successes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! Indeed your very first post in response to me was incorrect. At that point you handed over to others
Which part of it was incorrect?"The bit where you attempted to deflect from government’s decision to leave the CU/SM by saying it was negotiated with the EU. Theresa May told us we’d leave the CU/SM in her Lancaster house speech on 17th Jan 2017. Negotiations with the EU began in March 2017. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! No, I mean this place is full of people (you included, at times) who read what you want to read before deciding what you thought a post said, rather than what it said
You’ve already demonstrated once in this thread that you didn’t understand.
Lol.. If I remember the debate about socialism, you were the one who did that. When I asked multiple questions pointing out the flaws in your arguments, you never answered or engaged with those questions. We were repeatedly telling you that no country ever achieved ideological purity either with capitalism or socialism and hence that's not a base requirement to criticise them, you were repeatedly parroting the same line, "socialism is.... yada yada yada..." and lecturing us to read more when you proved that you didn't even know the difference between socialism and communism.
The same is happening in this thread. Multiple people attempting to explain that you are arguing about the wrong thing(which is what a strawman is)."You had your arse handed to you on socialism (you demonstrated an immense lack of understanding there, and you weren’t alone). And you’ve so far been wrong here with your brief, inaccurate addition as well. You’re consistent, at least. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! Indeed your very first post in response to me was incorrect. At that point you handed over to others
Which part of it was incorrect?
The bit where you attempted to deflect from government’s decision to leave the CU/SM by saying it was negotiated with the EU.
Theresa May told us we’d leave the CU/SM in her Lancaster house speech on 17th Jan 2017. Negotiations with the EU began in March 2017."You used the phrase "nature of Brexit" which I assumed was about the deal we reached eventually. When you clarified what you were talking about, I said in my next message that one main reasons for Brexit was to leave the EU regulatory framework and there was no way it was going to happen if we stayed in the market. So what's the problem here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! Indeed your very first post in response to me was incorrect. At that point you handed over to others
Which part of it was incorrect?
The bit where you attempted to deflect from government’s decision to leave the CU/SM by saying it was negotiated with the EU.
Theresa May told us we’d leave the CU/SM in her Lancaster house speech on 17th Jan 2017. Negotiations with the EU began in March 2017.
You used the phrase "nature of Brexit" which I assumed was about the deal we reached eventually. When you clarified what you were talking about, I said in my next message that one main reasons for Brexit was to leave the EU regulatory framework and there was no way it was going to happen if we stayed in the market. So what's the problem here?"The problem is that our government - in possession of the impact assessments, chose a Brexit that they knew would impact the public negatively. I thought I’d made that clear already | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! No, I mean this place is full of people (you included, at times) who read what you want to read before deciding what you thought a post said, rather than what it said
You’ve already demonstrated once in this thread that you didn’t understand.
Lol.. If I remember the debate about socialism, you were the one who did that. When I asked multiple questions pointing out the flaws in your arguments, you never answered or engaged with those questions. We were repeatedly telling you that no country ever achieved ideological purity either with capitalism or socialism and hence that's not a base requirement to criticise them, you were repeatedly parroting the same line, "socialism is.... yada yada yada..." and lecturing us to read more when you proved that you didn't even know the difference between socialism and communism.
The same is happening in this thread. Multiple people attempting to explain that you are arguing about the wrong thing(which is what a strawman is).
You had your arse handed to you on socialism (you demonstrated an immense lack of understanding there, and you weren’t alone). And you’ve so far been wrong here with your brief, inaccurate addition as well.
You’re consistent, at least. "
You didn't have an answer to a single question I or anyone else asked. The only replies you made were some vague definition of socialism, a thorough misunderstanding of Marxism and communism and an article which actually went against your own claims. Yeah my arse was handed to me.
But going by these posts, I have got to agree with you on one thing. Twitter is a better place for you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! No, I mean this place is full of people (you included, at times) who read what you want to read before deciding what you thought a post said, rather than what it said
You’ve already demonstrated once in this thread that you didn’t understand.
Lol.. If I remember the debate about socialism, you were the one who did that. When I asked multiple questions pointing out the flaws in your arguments, you never answered or engaged with those questions. We were repeatedly telling you that no country ever achieved ideological purity either with capitalism or socialism and hence that's not a base requirement to criticise them, you were repeatedly parroting the same line, "socialism is.... yada yada yada..." and lecturing us to read more when you proved that you didn't even know the difference between socialism and communism.
The same is happening in this thread. Multiple people attempting to explain that you are arguing about the wrong thing(which is what a strawman is).
You had your arse handed to you on socialism (you demonstrated an immense lack of understanding there, and you weren’t alone). And you’ve so far been wrong here with your brief, inaccurate addition as well.
You’re consistent, at least.
You didn't have an answer to a single question I or anyone else asked. The only replies you made were some vague definition of socialism, a thorough misunderstanding of Marxism and communism and an article which actually went against your own claims. Yeah my arse was handed to me.
But going by these posts, I have got to agree with you on one thing. Twitter is a better place for you "The article you didn’t read?
It’s ok dude, I’m done discussing this with you. You’ve been proven wrong. We’re good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! No, I mean this place is full of people (you included, at times) who read what you want to read before deciding what you thought a post said, rather than what it said
You’ve already demonstrated once in this thread that you didn’t understand.
Lol.. If I remember the debate about socialism, you were the one who did that. When I asked multiple questions pointing out the flaws in your arguments, you never answered or engaged with those questions. We were repeatedly telling you that no country ever achieved ideological purity either with capitalism or socialism and hence that's not a base requirement to criticise them, you were repeatedly parroting the same line, "socialism is.... yada yada yada..." and lecturing us to read more when you proved that you didn't even know the difference between socialism and communism.
The same is happening in this thread. Multiple people attempting to explain that you are arguing about the wrong thing(which is what a strawman is).
You had your arse handed to you on socialism (you demonstrated an immense lack of understanding there, and you weren’t alone). And you’ve so far been wrong here with your brief, inaccurate addition as well.
You’re consistent, at least.
You didn't have an answer to a single question I or anyone else asked. The only replies you made were some vague definition of socialism, a thorough misunderstanding of Marxism and communism and an article which actually went against your own claims. Yeah my arse was handed to me.
But going by these posts, I have got to agree with you on one thing. Twitter is a better place for you
The article you didn’t read?
It’s ok dude, I’m done discussing this with you. You’ve been proven wrong. We’re good "The article that said India and Sri Lanka were socialist countries while you were arguing with us that China wasn't one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fucking place, man. Twitter has a better standard of debate. And that’s not a compliment to Twitter. You mean this place isn't an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you and likes your post and instead they are actually arguing with you and pointing out flaws in your arguments? How dare they! No, I mean this place is full of people (you included, at times) who read what you want to read before deciding what you thought a post said, rather than what it said
You’ve already demonstrated once in this thread that you didn’t understand.
Lol.. If I remember the debate about socialism, you were the one who did that. When I asked multiple questions pointing out the flaws in your arguments, you never answered or engaged with those questions. We were repeatedly telling you that no country ever achieved ideological purity either with capitalism or socialism and hence that's not a base requirement to criticise them, you were repeatedly parroting the same line, "socialism is.... yada yada yada..." and lecturing us to read more when you proved that you didn't even know the difference between socialism and communism.
The same is happening in this thread. Multiple people attempting to explain that you are arguing about the wrong thing(which is what a strawman is).
You had your arse handed to you on socialism (you demonstrated an immense lack of understanding there, and you weren’t alone). And you’ve so far been wrong here with your brief, inaccurate addition as well.
You’re consistent, at least.
You didn't have an answer to a single question I or anyone else asked. The only replies you made were some vague definition of socialism, a thorough misunderstanding of Marxism and communism and an article which actually went against your own claims. Yeah my arse was handed to me.
But going by these posts, I have got to agree with you on one thing. Twitter is a better place for you
The article you didn’t read?
It’s ok dude, I’m done discussing this with you. You’ve been proven wrong. We’re good
The article that said India and Sri Lanka were socialist countries while you were arguing with us that China wasn't one."Read it again, but slower and with a bit more attention
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*sigh* I see now where you’ve misunderstood. Even if the whole country wanted a hard Brexit except for me, pursuing Brexit as they did was still an example of the government working against the interests of the public - as the impact assessments revealed. What you want and what is in your interests are not necessarily the same thing." Well that might be a valid point if we were 20 years down the road and it could be proved that Brexit has definitely made us all worse off. As it is we're only 4 years in and there's no telling what will happen in the next few years. You're already convinced that it will be a failure, but that doesn't make it true. It might also be correct if the people voting for Brexit were doing so solely for economic reasons. However if they were more concerned about 'sovereignty' and 'freedom from EU rule', then the government has done the right thing for them. Your problem is that you have no ability to understand that someone else might have a different view on things, and might place value on things you don't care about. That's why you think that Brexit is clearly a bad thing for us all, and the majority of people think differently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out?" It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out?" "It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they?" You're making inaccurate assumptions about my standpoint. "But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions." But we're in a position of having had a Tory government for a long time, and everybody is feeling financially pressed. If the train drivers get what they're asking for (which Labour can't really deny them), then won't lots of others feel that they also deserve more money? How soon will labour be able to prove themselves fit for purpose and deliver a good standard of living that will make us all comfortable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? You're making inaccurate assumptions about my standpoint. But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. But we're in a position of having had a Tory government for a long time, and everybody is feeling financially pressed. If the train drivers get what they're asking for (which Labour can't really deny them), then won't lots of others feel that they also deserve more money? How soon will labour be able to prove themselves fit for purpose and deliver a good standard of living that will make us all comfortable?" They've got a hill to climb and we know that. But if they put their proposals in it's a step in the right direction | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country " They will do no worst, but I think they will do no better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country " Many expect them to be no worse than the Tories and just have to hope they are right as its what lies in store for us all. I am not convinced that using the previous Labour government as an example is a good idea. This is not the same people or the same time and as they say past performance is no guarantee of future performance. If it was then some may bring up past Labour governments that weren't so successful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How soon will labour be able to prove themselves fit for purpose and deliver a good standard of living that will make us all comfortable?" Define a "good standard of living", because it's all relative isn't it and highly subjective ? Define "comfortable" ? Is there a singular, commonly accepted definition ? . I suppose a good start would be no-one should need to have to need a food bank for a start, perhaps ? But where to go from there I wonder ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. " . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver " Not going to bite, simply because you’re uneducated on the topic, and I suspect you’d not listen to reason anyhoo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver " Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment." Bolt a driverless tesla on the front. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. Bolt a driverless tesla on the front. " And they said innovation is dead in the UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the other week a Labour MP suggested that dead people should be able to change their sex on their death certificate. While its not Labour policy as far as I know its just something that could happen under their Government which they likely to implement if they agree to it, looney idea I don’t think you read that story correctly." i heard Charlotte Nichols who came up with the idea speak about it and again I don't think it's a Labour policy as a whole but I won't be surprised if they did decide to do that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment." And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver " Does a reasonable rate of pay come with reasonable hours? Will they get extra pay for working antisocial hours and weekends or is a flat rate included in the reasonable pay package? With all due respect I don't think you've thought this one through. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. " Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers" And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. " We can always start with London/Edinburgh and expand it to other places. As I said, it needs a lottt of investment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. We can always start with London/Edinburgh and expand it to other places. As I said, it needs a lottt of investment." It’s not going to happen in the next 50 years *at least* - and as I said, there’ll still be staff on board. Mainline rail isn’t metro rail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. We can always start with London/Edinburgh and expand it to other places. As I said, it needs a lottt of investment. It’s not going to happen in the next 50 years *at least* - and as I said, there’ll still be staff on board. Mainline rail isn’t metro rail." Denmark already has bidders to implement GoA4 trains for their S-Trains planned to be live by 2030. I don't know where you pulled that *at least* 50 years number from. Bet that place is dark. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories if they win the next election? Everything is in a right old mess in this country " it can get a lot worse,,, wait till they kick off all their old labour councillor buddies start all their new quango's to line their own pockets  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. We can always start with London/Edinburgh and expand it to other places. As I said, it needs a lottt of investment. It’s not going to happen in the next 50 years *at least* - and as I said, there’ll still be staff on board. Mainline rail isn’t metro rail. Denmark already has bidders to implement GoA4 trains for their S-Trains planned to be live by 2030. I don't know where you pulled that *at least* 50 years number from. Bet that place is dark." Well, it comes from 21 years first hand knowledge of the U.K rail industry. The new generation of intercity trains have been working here since 2017-2018. They’ve got an expected lifespan of around 40 years. They’re also not compatible with any driverless tech. So that’s gong to be later than 2050 or thereabouts before the next gen trains replace them. Now assuming we had the cash and the willpower to commence a project of automation, we’d need to be starting the planning of it in the next few years (remember that HS2 began planning began in 2009 and that’s expected to open (fully) around 2033 - and we can expect that to slip further. So that 25 years for a project *much* smaller than full automation. I reckon if we started planning to automate the rail network tomorrow, it *might* be running by 2080, given how these projects work in the UK. And it would *still* have safety critical staff on board. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. We can always start with London/Edinburgh and expand it to other places. As I said, it needs a lottt of investment. It’s not going to happen in the next 50 years *at least* - and as I said, there’ll still be staff on board. Mainline rail isn’t metro rail. Denmark already has bidders to implement GoA4 trains for their S-Trains planned to be live by 2030. I don't know where you pulled that *at least* 50 years number from. Bet that place is dark." And the system you’re referring to is *still* a metro system. So not comparable to mainline rail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. We can always start with London/Edinburgh and expand it to other places. As I said, it needs a lottt of investment. It’s not going to happen in the next 50 years *at least* - and as I said, there’ll still be staff on board. Mainline rail isn’t metro rail. Denmark already has bidders to implement GoA4 trains for their S-Trains planned to be live by 2030. I don't know where you pulled that *at least* 50 years number from. Bet that place is dark. Well, it comes from 21 years first hand knowledge of the U.K rail industry. The new generation of intercity trains have been working here since 2017-2018. They’ve got an expected lifespan of around 40 years. They’re also not compatible with any driverless tech. So that’s gong to be later than 2050 or thereabouts before the next gen trains replace them. Now assuming we had the cash and the willpower to commence a project of automation, we’d need to be starting the planning of it in the next few years (remember that HS2 began planning began in 2009 and that’s expected to open (fully) around 2033 - and we can expect that to slip further. So that 25 years for a project *much* smaller than full automation. I reckon if we started planning to automate the rail network tomorrow, it *might* be running by 2080, given how these projects work in the UK. And it would *still* have safety critical staff on board." Is this knowledge as strong as your first hand knowledge about socialism? 
Anyway, you have been continuously moving goal posts as always. We could start with London and also set it as a base requirement for any new railway projects we embark on. The delays in UK seem to be an outcome of terrible management rather than technical issues. But as I said in my first post, it will require a lottt of investment to the point we need to think if its worth it.
There isn't a requirement for staff to be present onboard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. We can always start with London/Edinburgh and expand it to other places. As I said, it needs a lottt of investment. It’s not going to happen in the next 50 years *at least* - and as I said, there’ll still be staff on board. Mainline rail isn’t metro rail. Denmark already has bidders to implement GoA4 trains for their S-Trains planned to be live by 2030. I don't know where you pulled that *at least* 50 years number from. Bet that place is dark. Well, it comes from 21 years first hand knowledge of the U.K rail industry. The new generation of intercity trains have been working here since 2017-2018. They’ve got an expected lifespan of around 40 years. They’re also not compatible with any driverless tech. So that’s gong to be later than 2050 or thereabouts before the next gen trains replace them. Now assuming we had the cash and the willpower to commence a project of automation, we’d need to be starting the planning of it in the next few years (remember that HS2 began planning began in 2009 and that’s expected to open (fully) around 2033 - and we can expect that to slip further. So that 25 years for a project *much* smaller than full automation. I reckon if we started planning to automate the rail network tomorrow, it *might* be running by 2080, given how these projects work in the UK. And it would *still* have safety critical staff on board. Is this knowledge as strong as your first hand knowledge about socialism?
Anyway, you have been continuously moving goal posts as always. We could start with London and also set it as a base requirement for any new railway projects we embark on. The delays in UK seem to be an outcome of terrible management rather than technical issues. But as I said in my first post, it will require a lottt of investment to the point we need to think if its worth it.
There isn't a requirement for staff to be present onboard."I’ve got 21 years railway experience as a driver, instructor, assessor, trainer, and manager. You’re talking nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. We can always start with London/Edinburgh and expand it to other places. As I said, it needs a lottt of investment. It’s not going to happen in the next 50 years *at least* - and as I said, there’ll still be staff on board. Mainline rail isn’t metro rail. Denmark already has bidders to implement GoA4 trains for their S-Trains planned to be live by 2030. I don't know where you pulled that *at least* 50 years number from. Bet that place is dark. And the system you’re referring to is *still* a metro system. So not comparable to mainline rail. " It's not Metro | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. We can always start with London/Edinburgh and expand it to other places. As I said, it needs a lottt of investment. It’s not going to happen in the next 50 years *at least* - and as I said, there’ll still be staff on board. Mainline rail isn’t metro rail. Denmark already has bidders to implement GoA4 trains for their S-Trains planned to be live by 2030. I don't know where you pulled that *at least* 50 years number from. Bet that place is dark. And the system you’re referring to is *still* a metro system. So not comparable to mainline rail. It's not Metro" Yes it is. It’s a hybrid urban system, same as they use in several German cities. It’s not mainline. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve got 21 years railway experience as a driver, instructor, assessor, trainer, and manager." But no experience at all in automation, large project management, or safety critical engineering. "You’re talking nonsense." He isn't. The Elizabeth line is currently fully automated through the tunnel sections, and it could easily be extended to the whole line if the unions would allow it. The technology has existed for years, and is being applied to lines as and when they are upgraded. It will happen over the next 50 years or so, as it become more and more clear that the unions are maintaining jobs for their members at the cost of efficiency and safety. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He isn't. The Elizabeth line is currently fully automated through the tunnel sections, and it could easily be extended to the whole line if the unions would allow it. The technology has existed for years, and is being applied to lines as and when they are upgraded." Now you’re *really* in my wheelhouse, because the Elizabeth line uses the GWML, which I am *very* familiar with. It’s nothing to do with unions not allowing it, and it could not be ‘easily’ extended to the overground sections. One of the basic elements of fully automated driverless running will be ETCS level 3 signalling. We currently don’t have level 3 anywhere in the country, including the Elizabeth line which uses level 2 for the tunnel sections and standard signaling outside the tunnel. There are no plans at present to ever introduce level 3. (That’s why we’ll always been a person in the front of the train and why the Elizabeth line can’t run through the tunnel unaffected when they take strike action as they’ve done recently. (Also I’ve just not long completed my diploma in project management. ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, back to strikes again. If the train drivers are appeased by a future Labour government, as seems likely, how many other unions will decide that their members have been hard done by, and will expect the new Labour government to help them out? It's awful when working people expect to be paid appropriately for their labour. How dare they? But just to clarify, the numerous strikes we've had recently have been under the conservatives. We never had anything like this under the last labour government, even during the worldwide recession. When a government makes itself fit for purpose so people can afford to live, there's no need for strikes. I absolutely hope the labour government does work properly with unions. . On a simplistic basis one person's pay increase is another person's price increase . By modern standards train drivers are totally overpaid for what they do. Technology has moved on and we should be able to replace them with staff who will work for a more reasonable rate . Why should members of the public be expected to pay higher fares when to alloa train drivers to earn excessive paid. The pay of a train driver is circa twice that of a lorry driver Ideally we should move on to driverless trains as much as possible. But that requires a lottttt of investment. And will still have a little chap or chapess sat at the front of it. Why? GoA4 trains are already running in many countries without drivers And GoA4 is designed for self-contained metro networks, not mainline rail. A very different beast, with very different challenges. We can always start with London/Edinburgh and expand it to other places. As I said, it needs a lottt of investment. It’s not going to happen in the next 50 years *at least* - and as I said, there’ll still be staff on board. Mainline rail isn’t metro rail. Denmark already has bidders to implement GoA4 trains for their S-Trains planned to be live by 2030. I don't know where you pulled that *at least* 50 years number from. Bet that place is dark. And the system you’re referring to is *still* a metro system. So not comparable to mainline rail. It's not Metro Yes it is. It’s a hybrid urban system, same as they use in several German cities. It’s not mainline. " It's hybrid. It's not Metro. For the debate we are having, it mostly runs overground, which means it has the same challenges most mainline rail would have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
