Strokes Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 Just now, Rogstanley said: Leaving the single market wasn't in the labour manifesto. It said they wanted to retain all its benefits and if that wasn't possible then they would put jobs and the economy first. No I don't agree with your argument about endorsement for all the reasons stated in my posts above. All your reasons stated above although well thought out fail to deliver a clear mandate. But don’t think I won’t be re using this argument now I know that voting for a party and continued support only means you support the bits you like and non of the negatives can be pinned on you. So also if brexit fails, it’s not brexiteers fault, as they only wanted this bit and that bit. Not the others. We are all blameless now.
Guest Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 5 minutes ago, Strokes said: All your reasons stated above although well thought out fail to deliver a clear mandate. But don’t think I won’t be re using this argument now I know that voting for a party and continued support only means you support the bits you like and non of the negatives can be pinned on you. So also if brexit fails, it’s not brexiteers fault, as they only wanted this bit and that bit. Not the others. We are all blameless now. whether you are blamed won't be for you to decide if it goes tits up as you were warned
Strokes Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 2 minutes ago, foxinexile said: Both the Tories and Labour (albeit differently) have said they will respect the referendum result and ensure the UK leaves the EU. Leaving the SM had to be part of their GE manifestos for this reason. That doesn't mean the GE superseded the 2016 referendum, because the GE wasn't about Brexit - Theresa May tried to make it about that and failed. I'm interested to know why you didn't vote UKIP though, as they clearly are the only party who will ever enact a "Hard" Brexit. Already the Tories have reneged on so much of the bluster that was said (no surprise there). We're staying in the SM for a further two years after March 2019 and by the end of that time who knows what our relationship with the EU27 will look like. So if 85% of the electorate endorsed leaving the SM (which they didn't, because that wasn't what the GE was about), if we had a GE tomorrow all those who vote Tory surely endorse not leaving the SM until the end of 2020 at the earliest by your definition. I didn’t need to vote UKIP because both the main parties were committed to SM exit and not being members of the Customs Union. I didn’t vote for either in the end because I ran out of time for a postal vote as I was on holiday and couldn’t pick between the two. (Labour and conservatives)
Strokes Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: whether you are blamed won't be for you to decide if it goes tits up as you were warned Whether I hold my hands up and accept it will be. Thats all that matters to me. So thanks for the easy guilt free future voting mentality, it will be much easier to choose in future.
Guest Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Strokes said: I didn’t need to vote UKIP because both the main parties were committed to SM exit and not being members of the Customs Union. I didn’t vote for either in the end because I ran out of time for a postal vote as I was on holiday and couldn’t pick between the two. (Labour and conservatives) 9 minutes ago, Strokes said: I didn’t need to vote UKIP because both the main parties were committed to SM exit and not being members of the Customs Union. I didn’t vote for either in the end because I ran out of time for a postal vote as I was on holiday and couldn’t pick between the two. (Labour and conservatives) To be perfectly honest with you my reading at the time was that we'd had the referendum 9 months earlier and were leaving the EU. The Lib dem second ref did appeal a little bit but the woke liberal package wasn't enough. The labour vision was far more sensible and realistic than the ridiculous tory no deal is better than a bad deal tubthumping. The labour position appeared to be that we would leave the single market but that they'd seek the same benefits. From the language used - jobs first Brexit and scraping the tory plans - it appeared to me that if it came to the crunch they would stay in the single market rather than have no deal. I voted on that basis although, as you know, Brexit wasn't the reason I voted labour. Their domestic agenda was. If they'd won I'd have accepted leaving the single market but agreeing a deal that contained all the benefits of being in the single market. If they couldn't get all the benefits then they'd have no mandate to leave it. So, for this reason, no I don't agree any carte blanche mandate to leave the single market was contained within the labour manifesto. It was couched in terms promising a specific type of deal if they did. Given that the Tories only received 40% ish of the vote, and ukip virtually nil, the majority of the country voted to either stay in the single market or only leave of the exact same benefits could be agreed. In fact, that exact term was also used by David Davis so you could argue the number is even greater. Edited 28 April 2018 by Guest
Strokes Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 18 minutes ago, toddybad said: Somebody has woken up very grumpy that MPs are about to start forcing the government into retreat over anything but a soft Brexit I’m not grumpy at all, if MPs betray their manifestos and the referendum it is their risk to take. If the electorate care enough they will punish them and we can get a pro brexit house next time. If they don’t care enough and they get away with it then fine, that’s democracy.
Strokes Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: To be perfectly honest with you my reading at the time was that we'd hard the referendum 9 months earlier and were leaving the EU. The Lin dem second ref did appeal a little bit their liberal package wasn't enough. The labour vision was far more sensible and realistic that the ridiculous tory no deal is better than a bad deal tubthumping. The labour position appeared to be that we would leave the single market but that they'd seek the same benefits. From the language used - jobs first Brexit and scraping the tory plans - it appeared to me that if it came to the crunch they would stay in the single market rather than have no deal. I voted on that basis although, as you know, Brexit wasn't the reason I voted labour. Their domestic agenda was. If they'd won I'd have accepted leaving the single market but agreeing a deal that contained all the benefits of being in the single market. If they couldn't get all the benefits then they'd have no mandate to leave it. So, for this reason, no I don't agree any carte blanche mandate to leave the single market was contained within the labour manifesto. It was couched in terms promising a specific type of deal if they did. Given that the Tories only received 40% ish of the vote, and ukip virtually nil, the majority of the country voted to either stay in the single market or only leave of the exact same benefits could be agreed. In fact, that exact term was also used by David Davis so you could argue the number is even greater. Well you could argue that FOM in the single market is a benefit and they go on to state that they intend to bring an end to FOM. So we citizens lose the benefit of FOM. So retain all the benefits is open to interpretation of what is a benefit and what is a detriment. It’s poorly worded by all parties at best tbh.
Rogstanley Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 22 minutes ago, Strokes said: All your reasons stated above although well thought out fail to deliver a clear mandate. But don’t think I won’t be re using this argument now I know that voting for a party and continued support only means you support the bits you like and non of the negatives can be pinned on you. So also if brexit fails, it’s not brexiteers fault, as they only wanted this bit and that bit. Not the others. We are all blameless now. That's alright. If we're talking things like failing austerity, failing social services, falling wages, vindictive immigration targets, vindictive benefit cuts etc then I won't blame you personally unless you've expressed support for the policies that lead to those situations. I wonder what will be left of some of your reasons to vote Tory once we take all those policies out though?
Strokes Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 Just now, Rogstanley said: That's alright. If we're talking things like failing austerity, failing social services, falling wages, vindictive immigration targets, vindictive benefit cuts etc then I won't blame you personally unless you've expressed support for the policies that lead to those situations. I wonder what will be left of some of your reasons to vote Tory once we take all those policies out though? I didn’t vote Tory rog. So I only endorsed brexit as much as you did anyway
Guest Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Strokes said: Well you could argue that FOM in the single market is a benefit and they go on to state that they intend to bring an end to FOM. So we citizens lose the benefit of FOM. So retain all the benefits is open to interpretation of what is a benefit and what is a detriment. It’s poorly worded by all parties at best tbh. But presumably you see now that there isn't really a mandate for anything? Let's be honest it makes no odds as the politicians will do whatever they want anyway. The one thing there definitely isn't any sort of mandate for is no deal or hard Brexit. Edited 28 April 2018 by Guest
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 28 April 2018 Author Posted 28 April 2018 I see the government is still determined to defend Rudd, with Gove accusing Labour of ‘weaponising’ the issue to ‘divert attention from its anti-semitism issues’ (thus Gove conviently weaponising an issue himself) - alongside backing Rudd’s claims she ‘didn’t see the memo’ in question. Now for me, that stance is beyond belief, because the main culprit for weaponising this issue isn’t Labour, it’s the press, mainly the Guardian - they quite rightly were reporting on people’s difficulties with the Home Office, Labour have simply jumped on the back of it (and have every right to demand answers as an opposition and then in the face of mistruths / incompetence, question the person in charges position). Perhaps what’s equally eye opening is that the insides of the Conservative party machine decided this would be a good strategy? In my estimations its not and reflects badly on the party. Is anyone on the blue side on this forum willing to swallow and repeat that kind of line? Or would you agree, in normal circumstances this would be a resigning matter and that had this occurred on the other side of the house, you’d be asking for exactly that? With th all this in mind, the question then becomes - what is it that they are afraid of? Brandon Lewis who was also Cc’d on the memo is close to May isn’t he?
Rogstanley Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 The trouble is Theresa May has proven herself such an awful human being on so many occasions and not resigned, that any conservative mp is going to be well within their rights to question why they should ever have to resign. I mean if you can get away with literally bribing your way into power, or taking an armed security escort to visit members of the electorate some of whose family members had burned alive in Grenfell days earlier, then the bar of acceptable behaviour is set incredibly low, such that even the depths of depravity that is racially targeting people for deportation is no longer a resigning issue.
Guest Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: I see the government is still determined to defend Rudd, with Gove accusing Labour of ‘weaponising’ the issue to ‘divert attention from its anti-semitism issues’ (thus Gove conviently weaponising an issue himself) - alongside backing Rudd’s claims she ‘didn’t see the memo’ in question. Now for me, that stance is beyond belief, because the main culprit for weaponising this issue isn’t Labour, it’s the press, mainly the Guardian - they quite rightly were reporting on people’s difficulties with the Home Office, Labour have simply jumped on the back of it (and have every right to demand answers as an opposition and then in the face of mistruths / incompetence, question the person in charges position). Perhaps what’s equally eye opening is that the insides of the Conservative party machine decided this would be a good strategy? In my estimations its not and reflects badly on the party. Is anyone on the blue side on this forum willing to swallow and repeat that kind of line? Or would you agree, in normal circumstances this would be a resigning matter and that had this occurred on the other side of the house, you’d be asking for exactly that? With th all this in mind, the question then becomes - what is it that they are afraid of? Brandon Lewis who was also Cc’d on the memo is close to May isn’t he? I think the problem they have is that Rudd is TM's human shield. The reality is that it was May's policies that caused this. If Rudd goes and the debacle doesn't end there - so if the windrush generation find they have trouble proving their right to vote next week, for example, then May will be directly in line for criticism (not that she isn't now). Edited 28 April 2018 by Guest
Sampson Posted 28 April 2018 Posted 28 April 2018 If the Tories don't back the competition commission putting a block on this Sainsbury's and Asda merger then they really will have dived straight over into full on corporatism. No Conservative or Liberal party worth their salt could ever not want to block this merger.
Guest Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 (edited) Hard Brexiteers might moan but this is an essential addition being proposed in the lords. As with the last one, it's unforgivable that the government have been trying to tie the hands of parliament before now. This would end the threat of no deal Brexit. Support grows for cross-party plans to prevent ‘no deal’ Brexit https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/28/support-for-cross-party-plans-take-no-deal-brexit-off-table?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Edited 29 April 2018 by Guest
breadandcheese Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 6 hours ago, Sampson said: If the Tories don't back the competition commission putting a block on this Sainsbury's and Asda merger then they really will have dived straight over into full on corporatism. No Conservative or Liberal party worth their salt could ever not want to block this merger. It's an interesting one. My instinct is the same as yours, the one small doubt in that, is the rise of Amazon. This could be a preparatory move by Sainsburys before Amazon really starts to ramp up their UK grocery market.
Guest Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 1 hour ago, breadandcheese said: It's an interesting one. My instinct is the same as yours, the one small doubt in that, is the rise of Amazon. This could be a preparatory move by Sainsburys before Amazon really starts to ramp up their UK grocery market. Supposedly the Tesco/Borders merger is what had emboldened Sainsbury's/Asda to believe that this can be done.
Guest MattP Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 Was only a matter of time. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exposed-russian-twitter-bots-tried-to-swing-general-election-for-jeremy-corbyn-zffv8652x
Sharpe's Fox Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 30 minutes ago, MattP said: Was only a matter of time... ...that the press media would attempt to distract from the Windrush scandal with their latest brand of cutting edge investigative journalism; endless hours of scrolling through Facebook and Twitter profiles.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 29 April 2018 Author Posted 29 April 2018 8 hours ago, Sampson said: If the Tories don't back the competition commission putting a block on this Sainsbury's and Asda merger then they really will have dived straight over into full on corporatism. No Conservative or Liberal party worth their salt could ever not want to block this merger. I think it’ll go through. I get the sense ASDA could be in a bit of trouble. They have lots of very large, out of town superstores which must be costly to run, but people’s shopping habits have massively changed. They didn’t go ‘convenience store’ route, so they have no market share there - it’s business is based on an outdated model. I also understand there have been some internal staff shake-ups going on.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 29 April 2018 Author Posted 29 April 2018 49 minutes ago, MattP said: Was only a matter of time. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exposed-russian-twitter-bots-tried-to-swing-general-election-for-jeremy-corbyn-zffv8652x A paywall can be quite effective for pot stirring - because your headline gets read out on other sources, but a vast majority of people can’t be bothered to pay to read more.
Guest Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 59 minutes ago, MattP said: Was only a matter of time. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exposed-russian-twitter-bots-tried-to-swing-general-election-for-jeremy-corbyn-zffv8652x Just waiting for the Brexit one. Brexit is clearly in the Russian interest.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Sampson said: If the Tories don't back the competition commission putting a block on this Sainsbury's and Asda merger then they really will have dived straight over into full on corporatism. No Conservative or Liberal party worth their salt could ever not want to block this merger. I actually don't think the CMA will block it and I'm.not sure why it'd corporatism to allow it. This deal makes the combined marginally bigger than Tesco and Tesco was allowed to acquire Booker by disposing of some local stores. I'd argue that deal was more of a competition threat. Asda's main strength is up north, Sainsbury's less so, but what will happen is they'll be forced to dispose of stores where local competition seems threatened. I actually don't see that it's a good deal for Sainsbury's tbh, I'm not sure shareholders will be overly keen. More importantly, I hope this doesn't turn Sainsbury's into Asda. Asda stores and produce are grim. Edited 29 April 2018 by Kopfkino
Guest MattP Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: Just waiting for the Brexit one. Brexit is clearly in the Russian interest. Brexit and Corbyn are both good for Russia, I won't deny that.
Webbo Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 2 minutes ago, MattP said: Brexit and Corbyn are both good for Russia, I won't deny that. The difference is nobody on the leave side has tried to muddy the waters on Putin's crimes.
Recommended Posts