If Brexit is cancelled, how will you vote on the next GE?
Poll: If Brexit is cancelled, how will you vote on the next GE?
Total Members Polled: 978
Discussion
Zigster said:
Kermit power said:
Equally, student loans are intrinsically fair. If the taxpayer funds your degree and you then earn more than average, why shouldn't you pay it back? Is it fair that lower paid, non degree educated workers support your success?
But someone earning more than average will be "paying it back" in the form of higher tax anyway. And where do you draw the line: why stop at degrees and not extend it to A-levels and apprenticeships?so reasonable for students to pay for degree.
Maybe fees should be cheaper for useful degrees which add value / are needed for UK business ?
bigdog3 said:
That poll at top of page is stunning 
Good sample size of 818 votes but skewed distribution because PistonHead posters are not fully representative of UK electorate.
But if the trend is anything like accurate, we are close to a political revolution
PH is male-dominated, and dare I say by a fair proportion of grumpy and vocal aging men. It is therefore heavily biased towards leave, around 2 to 1 whereas the rest of the country are close to evenly split. So no I don’t think we are close to political revolution. Good sample size of 818 votes but skewed distribution because PistonHead posters are not fully representative of UK electorate.But if the trend is anything like accurate, we are close to a political revolution
fatboy18 said:
Just amazed that the Blue party still have 24% of the votes here!
My take on that is it is predominantly the "anyone but Corbyn" vote not a pro Tory vote (my best pal is this). If you are convinced the election will be a normal fight between red and blue then it is a rational choice between two terrible options:Blue: In power and shamefully reneged on the referendum promise. Utterly inept leader (but who will be replaced pre election)
Red: Not in power but also did everything to stifle Brexit. Also led by a clueless 70s dinosaur with dangerous friends.
Libs will probably do better as coming from such a low base but most anger is on the Leave side so I can't see them switching to the uber Remain party.
I think the anti-blue and red vote is potentially huge but it needs convincing it won't lead to something worse which is why I think KP's suggestion is good.
It's the same dilemma as with Brexit itself. Vote for my godawful deal or you will get something far worse (Remainers: No Deal...Leavers: No Brexit). A terrible state of affairs. It's why I hate all this "consensus" and "compromise" talk which are just yet more weasel words to try and change the result. That's not what is needed at all. Would Remainers be doing that if they had won? Would Corbyn as PM say I'll just include a load of Tory policies to foster unity. No, a strong leader would just actually deliver Leave as promised and sack any Cabinet ministers who went against this (I understand the numbers make this difficult).
I am surprised how low the Labour vote is in the poll. I thought the diehard reds were higher than that.
Interesting times.
Northbloke said:
My take on that is it is predominantly the "anyone but Corbyn" vote not a pro Tory vote (my best pal is this). If you are convinced the election will be a normal fight between red and blue then it is a rational choice between two terrible options:
Blue: In power and shamefully reneged on the referendum promise. Utterly inept leader (but who will be replaced pre election)
Red: Not in power but also did everything to stifle Brexit. Also led by a clueless 70s dinosaur with dangerous friends.
Libs will probably do better as coming from such a low base but most anger is on the Leave side so I can't see them switching to the uber Remain party.
I think the anti-blue and red vote is potentially huge but it needs convincing it won't lead to something worse which is why I think KP's suggestion is good.
It's the same dilemma as with Brexit itself. Vote for my godawful deal or you will get something far worse (Remainers: No Deal...Leavers: No Brexit). A terrible state of affairs. It's why I hate all this "consensus" and "compromise" talk which are just yet more weasel words to try and change the result. That's not what is needed at all. Would Remainers be doing that if they had won? Would Corbyn as PM say I'll just include a load of Tory policies to foster unity. No, a strong leader would just actually deliver Leave as promised and sack any Cabinet ministers who went against this (I understand the numbers make this difficult).
I am surprised how low the Labour vote is in the poll. I thought the diehard reds were higher than that.
Interesting times.
Your essentially sensible post all falls down in my view on "deliver leave as promised." Blue: In power and shamefully reneged on the referendum promise. Utterly inept leader (but who will be replaced pre election)
Red: Not in power but also did everything to stifle Brexit. Also led by a clueless 70s dinosaur with dangerous friends.
Libs will probably do better as coming from such a low base but most anger is on the Leave side so I can't see them switching to the uber Remain party.
I think the anti-blue and red vote is potentially huge but it needs convincing it won't lead to something worse which is why I think KP's suggestion is good.
It's the same dilemma as with Brexit itself. Vote for my godawful deal or you will get something far worse (Remainers: No Deal...Leavers: No Brexit). A terrible state of affairs. It's why I hate all this "consensus" and "compromise" talk which are just yet more weasel words to try and change the result. That's not what is needed at all. Would Remainers be doing that if they had won? Would Corbyn as PM say I'll just include a load of Tory policies to foster unity. No, a strong leader would just actually deliver Leave as promised and sack any Cabinet ministers who went against this (I understand the numbers make this difficult).
I am surprised how low the Labour vote is in the poll. I thought the diehard reds were higher than that.
Interesting times.
The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
Plenty of people take the view that this means leaving without a deal and going to rules and that is their right, but it wasn't promised.
Others think it means leaving with a deal to set us up moving forward. Again, that's their right, but again nobody promised it, even if the official Leave campaign did put out leaflets saying we wouldn't leave without one.
So as a result of a stupidly simplistic question to try and answer an insanely complex question, we end up in a situation where nobody in parliament can agree on what Leave means, and there's nothing in the referendum to tell them.
Kermit power said:
Your essentially sensible post all falls down in my view on "deliver leave as promised."
The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
Plenty of people take the view that this means leaving without a deal and going to rules and that is their right, but it wasn't promised.
Others think it means leaving with a deal to set us up moving forward. Again, that's their right, but again nobody promised it, even if the official Leave campaign did put out leaflets saying we wouldn't leave without one.
So as a result of a stupidly simplistic question to try and answer an insanely complex question, we end up in a situation where nobody in parliament can agree on what Leave means, and there's nothing in the referendum to tell them.
It wasn't always like it is now. How do you square the bold with pre-Chequers?The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
Plenty of people take the view that this means leaving without a deal and going to rules and that is their right, but it wasn't promised.
Others think it means leaving with a deal to set us up moving forward. Again, that's their right, but again nobody promised it, even if the official Leave campaign did put out leaflets saying we wouldn't leave without one.
So as a result of a stupidly simplistic question to try and answer an insanely complex question, we end up in a situation where nobody in parliament can agree on what Leave means, and there's nothing in the referendum to tell them.
Chequers dumped the consensus of what Leaving entailed in favour of TM's deal, which leads us directly to where we are now.
Kermit power said:
You only need 30 years of NI contributions to get a full pension though, and it would be interesting to know if the average graduate manages to catch up with the average non grad over the course of their career in terms of tax and NI contributions?
Average pay is higher and lifetime earnings are higher for graduates so yes the average graduate will pay more in than the average non graduate. It’s particularly marked among women, female graduates will earn £250k+ more in their lifetime than non graduates (again average). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40965479
Thought I would vote for the Brexit Party but decided UKIP is the better option now. Even if we leave in some form or another from the EU I. hold not support the Conservatives at any point in the future.
Having completed some further homework on the UKIP Party it appears they do not offer the political home that I seek.
Having completed some further homework on the UKIP Party it appears they do not offer the political home that I seek.
Edited by crankedup on Friday 12th April 10:16
amusingduck said:
Kermit power said:
Your essentially sensible post all falls down in my view on "deliver leave as promised."
The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
Plenty of people take the view that this means leaving without a deal and going to rules and that is their right, but it wasn't promised.
Others think it means leaving with a deal to set us up moving forward. Again, that's their right, but again nobody promised it, even if the official Leave campaign did put out leaflets saying we wouldn't leave without one.
So as a result of a stupidly simplistic question to try and answer an insanely complex question, we end up in a situation where nobody in parliament can agree on what Leave means, and there's nothing in the referendum to tell them.
It wasn't always like it is now. How do you square the bold with pre-Chequers?The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
Plenty of people take the view that this means leaving without a deal and going to rules and that is their right, but it wasn't promised.
Others think it means leaving with a deal to set us up moving forward. Again, that's their right, but again nobody promised it, even if the official Leave campaign did put out leaflets saying we wouldn't leave without one.
So as a result of a stupidly simplistic question to try and answer an insanely complex question, we end up in a situation where nobody in parliament can agree on what Leave means, and there's nothing in the referendum to tell them.
Chequers dumped the consensus of what Leaving entailed in favour of TM's deal, which leads us directly to where we are now.
Kermit power said:
The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
The entire debacle of the past few years is because of the mindset, which you share, of our the Remoaner politicians who want to stop us from leaving the EU.The Remain campaign made it perfectly clear what "Leave" meant, as in leaving the EU. The Remoaner Cameron led New-Blue-Labour Govt. sent out a leaflet which specifically stated what "Leaving the EU" meant and that the Govt. would "implement" what we decide.
The Leave campaign made it perfectly clear that Leave meant Leave.
In 2017, we had a GE where both Labour and the Conservatives specifically stated that they supported and would honour the outcome of the EU Referendum. Both parties combined got the majority of votes. Only the Lib Dumbs promised a "peoples' vote" or "2nd referendum" and they got the least votes. If people so wanted to stay in this EU, then why didn't they vote Lib Dumb?
None of the campaigns mentioned N Ireland, backstops, deals, Facebook adverts and all the other neo-Communist nonsense which the Progressive pro-EU New-Blue-Labour Tories and New Labour Blairites keep on spouting.
Why is the above so hard for you Remoaners to understand?
Kermit power said:
There has certainly never been one for leaving with no deal
Yes there was a consensus, it was called 17.4 million who voted Leave. Both sides made it perfectly clear what Leave meant.
Many millions had made up their minds about the EU a long time ago, namely because of two events: the Maastricht Treaty (no referendum) and Blair opening the doors to E Europe in order to "rub the Right's nose in diversity" (no mention of that intention to open the doors to the former Soviet Bloc in the New Liebour 2001 Manifesto). Oddly enough, all Blair achieved was to alienate the core Labour vote and most of them voted Leave.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-or...
LeMansNut said:
Kermit power said:
The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
The entire debacle of the past few years is because of the mindset, which you share, of our the Remoaner politicians who want to stop us from leaving the EU.The Remain campaign made it perfectly clear what "Leave" meant, as in leaving the EU. The Remoaner Cameron led New-Blue-Labour Govt. sent out a leaflet which specifically stated what "Leaving the EU" meant and that the Govt. would "implement" what we decide.
The Leave campaign made it perfectly clear that Leave meant Leave.
In 2017, we had a GE where both Labour and the Conservatives specifically stated that they supported and would honour the outcome of the EU Referendum. Both parties combined got the majority of votes. Only the Lib Dumbs promised a "peoples' vote" or "2nd referendum" and they got the least votes. If people so wanted to stay in this EU, then why didn't they vote Lib Dumb?
None of the campaigns mentioned N Ireland, backstops, deals, Facebook adverts and all the other neo-Communist nonsense which the Progressive pro-EU New-Blue-Labour Tories and New Labour Blairites keep on spouting.
Why is the above so hard for you Remoaners to understand?
When you've calmed down and stopped shouting insults at everyone you might want to check out what's going on.
Parliament have already decided that we will not be leaving without a deal.
As promised....by the Leave campaign......prior to the referendum.
LeMansNut said:
Kermit power said:
The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
The entire debacle of the past few years is because of the mindset, which you share, of our the Remoaner politicians who want to stop us from leaving the EU.The Remain campaign made it perfectly clear what "Leave" meant, as in leaving the EU. The Remoaner Cameron led New-Blue-Labour Govt. sent out a leaflet which specifically stated what "Leaving the EU" meant and that the Govt. would "implement" what we decide.
The Leave campaign made it perfectly clear that Leave meant Leave.
In 2017, we had a GE where both Labour and the Conservatives specifically stated that they supported and would honour the outcome of the EU Referendum. Both parties combined got the majority of votes. Only the Lib Dumbs promised a "peoples' vote" or "2nd referendum" and they got the least votes. If people so wanted to stay in this EU, then why didn't they vote Lib Dumb?
None of the campaigns mentioned N Ireland, backstops, deals, Facebook adverts and all the other neo-Communist nonsense which the Progressive pro-EU New-Blue-Labour Tories and New Labour Blairites keep on spouting.
Why is the above so hard for you Remoaners to understand?
GT119 said:
LeMansNut said:
Kermit power said:
The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
The entire debacle of the past few years is because of the mindset, which you share, of our the Remoaner politicians who want to stop us from leaving the EU.The Remain campaign made it perfectly clear what "Leave" meant, as in leaving the EU. The Remoaner Cameron led New-Blue-Labour Govt. sent out a leaflet which specifically stated what "Leaving the EU" meant and that the Govt. would "implement" what we decide.
The Leave campaign made it perfectly clear that Leave meant Leave.
In 2017, we had a GE where both Labour and the Conservatives specifically stated that they supported and would honour the outcome of the EU Referendum. Both parties combined got the majority of votes. Only the Lib Dumbs promised a "peoples' vote" or "2nd referendum" and they got the least votes. If people so wanted to stay in this EU, then why didn't they vote Lib Dumb?
None of the campaigns mentioned N Ireland, backstops, deals, Facebook adverts and all the other neo-Communist nonsense which the Progressive pro-EU New-Blue-Labour Tories and New Labour Blairites keep on spouting.
Why is the above so hard for you Remoaners to understand?
When you've calmed down and stopped shouting insults at everyone you might want to check out what's going on.
Parliament have already decided that we will not be leaving without a deal.
As promised....by the Leave campaign......prior to the referendum.
Timeline of events...
1. Official leave campaign state in writing "we will not leave without a deal".
2. 17.4m people vote to leave. How many of them read that leaflet? Nobody knows. How many might have had their opinion swayed by that statement? Nobody knows. How many of them wanted to leave without a deal? Nobody knows, and the referendum never asked them.
3. We've had three years of parliament disagreeing about what sort of deal we should seek.
Stupid referendum question!
Let's try an analogy...
If a garage asks you if you want them to repair your car for £1k, you wouldn't just say yes or no, would you? You'd ask what you were going to get for your money, preferably in writing before shelling out that much cash, wouldn't you?
Kermit power said:
amusingduck said:
Kermit power said:
Your essentially sensible post all falls down in my view on "deliver leave as promised."
The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
Plenty of people take the view that this means leaving without a deal and going to rules and that is their right, but it wasn't promised.
Others think it means leaving with a deal to set us up moving forward. Again, that's their right, but again nobody promised it, even if the official Leave campaign did put out leaflets saying we wouldn't leave without one.
So as a result of a stupidly simplistic question to try and answer an insanely complex question, we end up in a situation where nobody in parliament can agree on what Leave means, and there's nothing in the referendum to tell them.
It wasn't always like it is now. How do you square the bold with pre-Chequers?The entire debacle of the past few years all hangs, in my mind, on the fact that no specific leave was promised.
Plenty of people take the view that this means leaving without a deal and going to rules and that is their right, but it wasn't promised.
Others think it means leaving with a deal to set us up moving forward. Again, that's their right, but again nobody promised it, even if the official Leave campaign did put out leaflets saying we wouldn't leave without one.
So as a result of a stupidly simplistic question to try and answer an insanely complex question, we end up in a situation where nobody in parliament can agree on what Leave means, and there's nothing in the referendum to tell them.
Chequers dumped the consensus of what Leaving entailed in favour of TM's deal, which leads us directly to where we are now.
Compare and contrast the Lancaster House speech with the rabbit-out-of-a-hat Chequers deal. The Lancaster House speech was the broad consensus of what Brexit meant, the narratives, rhetoric, manifestos all led to that speech. I'm staggered that you've already forgotten the pre-Chequers events!
I didn't read any leaflets on Brexit but I did watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44YTTyQKyJQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44YTTyQKyJQ
amusingduck said:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-par...
Compare and contrast the Lancaster House speech with the rabbit-out-of-a-hat Chequers deal. The Lancaster House speech was the broad consensus of what Brexit meant, the narratives, rhetoric, manifestos all led to that speech. I'm staggered that you've already forgotten the pre-Chequers events!
12:06, one of the very first points she makes...Compare and contrast the Lancaster House speech with the rabbit-out-of-a-hat Chequers deal. The Lancaster House speech was the broad consensus of what Brexit meant, the narratives, rhetoric, manifestos all led to that speech. I'm staggered that you've already forgotten the pre-Chequers events!
The article said:
She refers to Northern Ireland’s border with the Republic as an “important priority” and says the UK wants to secure the Common Travel Area “as soon as we can”.
"We won't agree on everything but I look forward to working with the administrations...to deliver a Brexit that works for the whole UK."
So if that's the previously accepted consensus on Brexit, then everything to do with the Backstop is part of that consensus, and without sorting it out, that consensus cannot be delivered?"We won't agree on everything but I look forward to working with the administrations...to deliver a Brexit that works for the whole UK."
12:10, John McDonnell is quoted, making it pretty clear that whoever else agrees with it being a "broad consensus", the Labour party didn't.
The article said:
Shadow Chancellor John MacDonnell says the PM's pledges amount to a "messy Brexit".
"We now know from what the Prime Minister is saying that she’s intent in pulling up the drawbridge, leaving the Single Market and possibly the Customs Union. We’re cutting ourselves off from jobs and public finances. This isn’t a clean Brexit, this is an extremely messy Brexit."
If, however, for a moment, we do accept that this speech represented a broad consensus, then the key point surely comes at 12:20?"We now know from what the Prime Minister is saying that she’s intent in pulling up the drawbridge, leaving the Single Market and possibly the Customs Union. We’re cutting ourselves off from jobs and public finances. This isn’t a clean Brexit, this is an extremely messy Brexit."
The article said:
Here's another news line from Theresa May: the Government wants a "phased" transitional deal to avoid a "cliff edge" scenario.
“As I have said before, it is in no one’s interests for there to be a cliff edge for business or a threat to stability... by this I do not mean that we will seek some form of transitional status in which we find ourselves forever stuck in some kind of permanent political purgatory...
“We believe a phased process of implementation in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states will be in our mutual self-interest. This will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements.”
Everything else she's discussing in that document is the end point. What parliament cannot currently agree on is not the end point. It's this phased transitional deal to avoid a cliff edge scenario.“As I have said before, it is in no one’s interests for there to be a cliff edge for business or a threat to stability... by this I do not mean that we will seek some form of transitional status in which we find ourselves forever stuck in some kind of permanent political purgatory...
“We believe a phased process of implementation in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states will be in our mutual self-interest. This will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements.”
So, if your broad consensus recognises that the Northern Ireland border needs to be resolved, and we can't crash straight out on a no deal, where do you place the blame for the current situation?
May's deal is, as I understand it, designed not to be the endpoint, but to be the cliff edge avoidance strategy that allows us to leave and start negotiating the actual endpoint, whilst also recognising the issue of the NI border.
Obviously you can blame May for needlessly calling a GE and giving so much power to the DUP, but even without that, would she have been able to get a deal through? Given that you think this document represented broad consensus, and you would've been happy with it, presumably much of the blame has to go to the ERG for trying to force through a hard Brexit against the broad consensus? Without that, May probably wouldn't have felt obliged to call a GE, and we would've already left the EU?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff