Chit Chat
In the 2015 her majority was 274 for Ealing Central and Acton; in 2017 was 13,807 when the Green Party did not field a candidate, and the Liberal Party (now) leader Vince Cable said he'd not vote for his Party instead would support her - a tactical voting in progress hence the increase majority; the next General Election could be very different, I believe.
Despite the Brexit Referendum in 2016 she still has not cottoned onto the fact who won the Referendum, and the validity and importance of that vote on democracy and politics in the UK.
And whilst you may disagree with the politics of Rupa Haq her majority has no relevance whatsoever.
there are plenty of seats where it can unseat the nasties
It's tough but that is the fact,...just accept it - part and parcel of democracy!
I'd like to see competent and intelligent MPs with experience in the Houses Of Parliament regardless of Party affiliation.
Jan 10, 2019 -- 12:57PM, asparagus wrote:
Absolute nonsense this validity of democracy. Democracy is not just a point in time, it is ongoing. Nearly 3 years on and many many things have changed. We are dealing with facts now rather than with fantasy. Over 1 million people who had the vote are dead and around 2 million who were denied the vote are now eligible. If there is no majority in Parliament for Theresa may's deal then of course it should go back to the public. It is ridiculous to crash out with no deal when this was not what was promised in the referendum. Democracy is actually more broken if we allow lies and fantasies to dictate our future. And whilst you may disagree with the politics of Rupa Haq her majority has no relevance whatsoever.
I agree that democracy is ongoing.
It tokk 40-plus years for a second referendum on our memebership of the EU (well, it was The Common Market back in the day before, er it got more autocratic and less democratic) before 17.4 million people were allowed to give voice to their feelings on this arrangement.
Therefore I sggest that, rather than having another referendum or series of referendums (referenda?) which would lead to democratic fatigue among the population, cause more rancour (what is the question being asked?) and almost certainly not give a clear enough answer (the greatest polarisation on ANY poll I have seen is 47% Leave / 50% Remain, which is still a coin toss and lead to unfinished business), we first implement the mandate given by the referundum in June 2016.
This was to Leave the EU.
Not 'Leave but be bound by EU Law'
Not 'Leave but cede Northern Ireland to The United States of Europe'
Not 'Leave but still negotiate how we're actually going to Leave'
Lave, give it 40 years (a precedent having been set) and then have another referendum on whether we want to rejoin the EU, if it still exists.
Of course, it suits the agenda of Remainers, 'to keep voting until we get it right'. With the advantage of 'The Establishment' they have played a blinder these last two years in reducing the issues surrounding our membership of the EU to 'The Deal' and our 'Future Relationship with the EU'rather than sovereignty and our abilty to forge our own way in the world and build relationships with other free nations.
Ironically, when it suits them, The EU talk about a 'Divorce Bill' (£39 bn to have no effective voice anymore - cheers Theresa) rather than a membership fee we no longer should be compelled to pay after we leave. Yet who divorces their partner on the basis that they are worried about their future relationship?
I imagine one gets a divorce to pursue a new life, new partners and pursue a new vision whilst, hopefully, remaining civil to your former partner.
That time moves forward is an irrelevant existential point. Tomorrow things will be different and we will know more than we do today. In a year we will know even more. The day after a second referendum we will know more. The day after a third we will know more. The day after a hundred referendums we will know more. It matters not.
Democracy just requires enough time to make a decision. 40 years of eu and 9 months notice was enough time
I would go so far as to suggest that all EU members had a compulsory vote every 25 years (one a generation) to be all in/ all out.
Then the club that is the EU might have some constructive self assessment.
Jan 13, 2019 -- 3:32PM, asparagus wrote:
Johnizere, no I'm well aware that not everybody who has died would have voted to leave and that not everybody who was denied the vote (even though they would be the most impacted) would vote to remain, but the point is that we do not know whether there is a majority in favour or remaining or leaving because the demographics have changed so significantly. More importantly, we also know now that virtually all the promises of the leave campaign were lies and that the leave campaign broke rules. We also know beyond reasonable doubt that there was Russian intereference. Most importantly we have a much better idea now of the facts if we leave. A vote on the facts is a much healthier democracy than a vote based on fiction. It's somewhat ridiculous that those people who bang on about 'the will of the people' are scared to have a vote based on facts and that those people who want to 'take back control' are unhappy when Parliament is trying to do that.
The Remain narrative is truly awful: ‘relax, we just need to wait because Leavers are all OAPs who are slowly dying off.’
This, I think, is about as nasty and divisive as any of the anti-immigration scare stories of the Leave campaign. It’s also based on a misreading of the evidence (Leave won among all voters over 45, and possibly the 35-45 bracket too). And more importantly, it exposes the continued failure of Remain campaigners to treat the people who disagree with them with respect, to respect and attempt to understand their motives and answer their concerns.
If your best hope of winning in politics is to pray for the death of those who aren’t persuaded by your arguments, neither you nor your arguments are any good.
virtually all the promises of the leave campaign were lies
We do?
Just because the negotiating stance we have taken since invoking Article 50 has not (because it was never designed to ) deliver an upbeat, positive, outward looking, confident post-Brexit Britain, don't confude this with lying - and please don't quote the so-called 'promise' re theNHS on the side of the red bus. Look up the definition of 'Let's' and then come back and talk about Osbornes emergency budget, JP Morgan's e-mail to clients that they expected Scotland to easve the EU and get a new currency, if Brexit happened, Goldman Sachs’ note, which declared the British economy would go into recession by early 2017, unemployment would go up by half a million and wages would go down by 4pc.
I am all for another referendum if the choice is between May's WA and what was mandated by the plebiscite of June 2016 but which the government have been too incompetent, lazy and duplicitous to implement.
underneath the nhs was mentioned but not putting the 350 into the nhs
hope this helps
It was an invitation to debate and focussed everyone's attention on how much we pay to the EU.
As such it worked brilliantly and is the gift that keeps on giving since Leavers are very happy to conduct any ongoing debate on this issue once the notion this was 'a promise' and 'a lie', has been skewered.
