# Local Government Election 2018



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Who do you intend to vote for in the May local elections? You can state your reason, even pro or anti Brexit although this is not intended to be a Brexit thread.

Some believe the local elections have no impact. I disagree. It was pointed out to me recently that UKIP did well in past local elections, though this was not repeated in a General Election.

It was enough to turn the Tories into UKIP and many moderate Tory and Labour candidates to adopt the, "Will of the People" soundbite in fear of losing votes.

The local elections are very important therefore.

Speaking for myself I would never vote Tory under any circumstances but I won't be voting Labour either as my protest against Corbyn's pro Brexit stance.

I'll therefore give my vote to a pro EU party.

I see this as the only way to get the message across.

I sincerely hope both Tory and Labour do badly in the forthcoming elections.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

I am remaining neuteral and will not be casting a vote at my local elections this year (got my polling card the other day and I put it through my shredder).

You don't have "won't be voting" on your list above.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

As we never have a green option I'll be voting labour. I feel more reassured about labours stance on brexit since Starmer clarified their position & I am desperate to punish the tories for all the misery, suffering & deaths their policies have created to both humans & animals alike.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

stockwellcat. said:


> I am remaining neuteral and will not be casting a vote at my local elections this year (got my polling card the other day and I put it through my shredder).
> 
> You don't have won't "be voting" on your list above.


I've been in contact with a Labour Party member who's pro EU and anti Corbyn on another forum.

He said he's not voting Labour for similar reasons to myself but as a party member he's going to abstain from voting.

I'll add "Will not be voting" to the list. Sent a message to the moderators to see if that can be done.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Labour for me.*


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

No elections here, there are few very local elections in the East Midlands in May.

In my ward the options are always conservative, UKIP and independent. All three candidates last time were racist morons, the same the time before. I don’t support their awful views so I don’t vote in local elections.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Your poll has been updated to add not voting as a choice.
I don't even tell my husband who I vote for let alone share that information publicly.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I vote very differently in local to general elections.
In a local election I vote for the individual who I feel will do the most for my local area and actually listen to their constituents and represent the locals.
So I haven't decided yet as still looking into it all.
In a general I vote for the party I want to represent the country.

However my town has just introduced compulsory ID to vote as a trial this year so I am thinking of boycotting as it means the possible exclusion of the most vulnerable


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Labour, same as I always do.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Cannot vote. If I could- Green?


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

If I was going to vote in a Local Election I would vote for the person to represent the area I am in. I am not voting because I feel that there is no one to vote for in my area and that is purely my decision to withhold my vote this time around. Perhaps when I move in the next few months there will be someone to vote for in the new area I am moving to but won't be able to vote for the person until next time they have a local election in that area.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

I don't think either of our tiers have an election this year.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

cheekyscrip said:


> Cannot vote. If I could- Green?


The Green Party is a watermelon, so don't vote for them unless you are a Communist.

The most valuable thing a person can do is to turn up to vote, and then spoil their ballot.
There are no parties which serve the British people any more. There haven't been for a long time, with the exception of UKIP, but they are no longer valid.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Not all the parties mentioned in the poll are being represented. 
A limited choice in my area but no way will I ever vote Labour while corbyn is leader.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> Not all the parties mentioned in the poll are being represented.
> A limited choice in my area but no way will I ever vote Labour while corbyn is leader.


If you vote Labour whether or not Corbyn is in charge, you are voting against your own interests anyway, and those of your children, friends, family, and people.
There are not longer any parties which represent the British people as it is illegal to create them.
In a couple of decades when the war goes hot, something good might rise from the ashes. Until then, we're pretty much screwed.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

mewtoo said:


> The Green Party is a watermelon, so don't vote for them unless you are a Communist.
> 
> The most valuable thing a person can do is to turn up to vote, and then spoil their ballot.
> There are no parties which serve the British people any more. There haven't been for a long time, with the exception of UKIP, but they are no longer valid.


More of an aging heterosnarchosyndicalist and I do not hold with square tomatoes no matter what @Zaros may say...

Screwed we are totally and sold to Spain...


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> More of an aging heterosnarchosyndicalist and I do not hold with square tomatoes no matter what @Zaros may say...
> *Screwed we are totally and sold to Spain.*..


Don't take on so, Scrippy. You should look to the benefits.

For a start, Spain has much nicer weather than Britain. The water at the beach is cleaner and much warmer, and Spain also does a nice Sherry unlike that Ye Olde Englande paint stripper stuff or QC that makes your eyes water. QC = Quite Cr4p.

Then of course, after your midday meal it's nap time.

That's if oldies such as yourself, haven't already fallen asleep and missed your grub.:Singing


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> If you vote Labour whether or not Corbyn is in charge, you are voting against your own interests anyway, and those of your children, friends, family, and people.
> *There are not longer any parties which represent the British people as it is illegal to create them.*
> In a couple of decades when the war goes hot, something good might rise from the ashes. Until then, we're pretty much screwed.


May I ask what law that is?


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Arnie83 said:


> May I ask what law that is?


Murphy's?


----------



## HarlequinCat (Nov 29, 2012)

It's an easy one for me. Our Labour are all for building on green belt land and don't get involved with what is happening in our community.

Conservative guy has been campaigning against building on green belt and fly tipping etc


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

I haven't decided whether I'm going to vote at all, let alone who I'll be voting for!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

HarlequinCat said:


> Conservative guy has been campaigning against building on green belt and fly tipping etc


OK, know it's a flippant question but are you suggesting Labour are pro fly tipping  Campaigning against fly tipping is no different to campaigning against burglary or murder - they're all already against the law.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

HarlequinCat said:


> It's an easy one for me. Our Labour are all for building on green belt land and don't get involved with what is happening in our community.
> 
> Conservative guy has been campaigning against building on green belt and fly tipping etc


And yet both of them are for creating the reason to build on the green belt.
Solution? Vote for neither.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> May I ask what law that is?


You can ask, but if I was to give you the answer then I'd receive a message from the mods telling me that I was being offensive and was being given a seven day ban, so you'll have to look into it yourself offsite.


----------



## HarlequinCat (Nov 29, 2012)

havoc said:


> OK, know it's a flippant question but are you suggesting Labour are pro fly tipping  Campaignining against fly tipping is no different to campaigning against burglary or murder - they're all already against the law.


No just saying our local labour government aren't as active in keeping the locals up to date or "involved", which I think is important. If people don't think you care about their area they are less likely to vote for them. And this is just about my local, I'm sure it's different in other areas of the country.

Don't know anyone pro fly tipping , except for the ones who do it I guess


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

havoc said:


> OK, know it's a flippant question but are you suggesting Labour are pro fly tipping  Campaignining against fly tipping is no different to campaigning against burglary or murder - they're all already against the law.


If Labour said they were against fly-tipping, but worked towards creating the conditions which led to more fly-tipping, would they be for or against fly-tipping?
That is the question.


----------



## HarlequinCat (Nov 29, 2012)

mewtoo said:


> And yet both of them are for creating the reason to build on the green belt.
> Solution? Vote for neither.


Like I say, in our local area our conservative mp isn't .

I will say I view my local and general elections as separate. I know many of you will think this is wrong, but I find local governments have different values(sometimes) to the national ones, there are always disagreements within parties over various issues. But that's just me. I am not thinking about brexit when I vote locally


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> You can ask, but if I was to give you the answer then I'd receive a message from the mods telling me that I was being offensive and was being given a seven day ban, so you'll have to look into it yourself offsite.


Odd as no laws in the UK or EU use any form of offensive language, so I doubt that, but if you are really that worried you could PM the person in question.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Vanessa131 said:


> so I don't vote in local elections.


Oooh, depends how local. Our Parish Council elections afford me endless hours of entertainment in watching ancient local grudges play out


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Vanessa131 said:


> Odd as no laws in the UK or EU use any form of offensive language


Offense is not an absolute thing; it is something to be taken by an individual, so you can't know that.



Vanessa131 said:


> so I doubt that, but if you are really that worried you could PM the person in question.


Better to have a public discussion, I think.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

HarlequinCat said:


> Like I say, in our local area our conservative mp isn't .
> 
> I will say I view my local and general elections as separate. I know many of you will think this is wrong, but I find local governments have different values(sometimes) to the national ones, there are always disagreements within parties over various issues. But that's just me. I am not thinking about credit when I vote locally


Yes, the local and general elections are separate. Local politicians *tend* to be more honourable than national ones.
However, the Conservative Party are pro-fly tipping. Actions vs words.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> Offense is not an absolute thing; it is something to be taken by an individual, so you can't know that.
> 
> Better to have a public discussion, I think.


I'm fairly certain no one would be identified by a reference number.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Vanessa131 said:


> I'm fairly certain no one would be identified by a reference number.


The last time I said something true albeit inconvenient, I got a seven day ban.
If free speech exists, then we can have an open discussion; if not, then the discussion is somewhat limited 
I would prefer an open discussion though as it's the only way for people to enrich themselves through learning.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> The last time I said something true albeit inconvenient, I got a seven day ban.
> If free speech exists, then we can have an open discussion; if not, then the discussion is somewhat limited
> I would prefer an open discussion though as it's the only way for people to enrich themselves through learning.


It is very clear from forum rules that reference numbers are both welcome and allowed, so odd that you won't post a mere number.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Vanessa131 said:


> It is very clear from forum rules that reference numbers are both welcome and allowed, so odd that you won't post a mere number.


What are these reference numbers you are talking about?


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> What are these reference numbers you are talking about?


Each law, Act etc has a reference, surely when you have looked at specific Acts etc you have seen this. Such as 13 Geo 3. c. 81


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Vanessa131 said:


> Each law, Act etc has a reference, surely when you have looked at specific Acts etc you have seen this. Such as 13 Geo 3. c. 81


I'm not going to spend hours going through the laws, no :Hilarious

If we were on an anonymous forum such as /pol/ then people would be able to help you out in that regard, but on here it's not going to happen.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> I'm not going to spend hours going through the laws, no :Hilarious
> 
> If we were on an anonymous forum such as /pol/ then people would be able to help you out in that regard, but on here it's not going to happen.


All you would need to do would be to google the approximate name of the law/act you're after, then copy the reference number. It took me approximately 30 seconds to get one for an enclosure act.

It's a shame when people are unwilling to fulfil a claim.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Vanessa131 said:


> All you would need to do would be to google the approximate name of the law/act you're after, then copy the reference number. It took me approximately 30 seconds to get one for an enclosure act.
> 
> It's a shame when people are unwilling to fulfil a claim.


You don't really understand what I'm trying to say.
It doesn't matter though, sort of. In the coming years you will understand.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> You don't really understand what I'm trying to say.
> It doesn't matter though, sort of. In the coming years you will understand.


I fully understanding that you are unwilling to back up your assertions regarding certain laws. That's fine, just remember when you do that it can make you look a little foolish. It will also prevent people considering your point of view, which you are well aware of.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Vanessa131 said:


> I fully understanding that you are unwilling to back up your assertions regarding certain laws. That's fine, just remember when you do that it can make you look a little foolish. It will also prevent people considering your point of view, which you are well aware of.


If this forum was run on the basis of free speech, then it would indeed look foolish if I was unable to back myself up.
However it is not, and I don't fancy another ban, so if the reader wants to educate his or herself in this matter, then they will have to do their own work.

If we were on a free speech forum then I'd be happy to go into more detail.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> If this forum was run on the basis of free speech, then it would indeed look foolish if I was unable to back myself up.
> However it is not, and I don't fancy another ban, so if the reader wants to educate his or herself in this matter, then they will have to do their own work.
> 
> If we were on a free speech forum then I'd be happy to go into more detail.


It's a shame you are using an excuse, you are well aware that posting the reference of legislation will not lead to a ban, so odd you would say that when we are all aware it is not infact true.

You will find it is unwise to claim something which you are unable to prove, it is also then unwise to then use a false reason as to why proof/evidence cannot be provided.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

mewtoo said:


> if not, then the discussion is somewhat limited


I have found that to be more and more the case recently.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

mewtoo said:


> If we were on a free speech forum then I'd be happy to go into more detail.


If we were on a free speech forum then we'd be able to post more sear words too.:Smug

But I think free speech is wonderful. It means I can choose to be careful what I say about any subject or topic under the sun.:Smuggrin


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Vanessa131 said:


> It's a shame you are using an excuse, you are well aware that posting the reference of legislation will not lead to a ban, so odd you would say that when we are all aware it is not infact true.
> 
> You will find it is unwise to claim something which you are unable to prove, it is also then unwise to then use a false reason as to why proof/evidence cannot be provided.


I got a warning for mentioning that inefficiency exists in the NHS, and I got a ban for mentioning that political correctness was a pseudo-religious belief.
I don't fancy another ban.
If you would like to get to the bottom of what we were talking about, then either you will have to have a think about it yourself, or you will have to go to one of the US-based political forums in which free speech exists, and ask someone there.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> I got a warning for mentioning that inefficiency exists in the NHS, and I got a ban for mentioning that political correctness was a pseudo-religious belief.
> I don't fancy another ban.
> If you would like to get to the bottom of what we were talking about, then either you will have to have a think about it yourself, or you will have to go to one of the US-based political forums in which free speech exists, and ask someone there.


I don't particularly want to get to the bottom of anything, I just find it very frustrating when someone posts something and comes up with a wide range of excuses as to why they can provide no evidence.

But then when that person didn't even know that legislation has reference info, you can only come to one reliable conclusion.

If I claim something, I provide evidence, I don't pretend I will be banned for breaking a non-existent rule. If I genuinely believed something I would also value that belief over a ban on a forum. But I guess some people aren't as passionate about their beliefs.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Vanessa131 said:


> I don't particularly want to get to the bottom of anything


Ok, so you don't want to know anyway. So no problem.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I just realized that some watermelons are actually yellow inside!!!
Could live with that...


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> You can ask, but if I was to give you the answer then I'd receive a message from the mods telling me that I was being offensive and was being given a seven day ban, so you'll have to look into it yourself offsite.


I have looked into it and conclude that there is no such law.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

mewtoo said:


> The Green Party is a watermelon, so don't vote for them unless you are a Communist.
> 
> The most valuable thing a person can do is to turn up to vote, and then spoil their ballot.
> There are no parties which serve the British people any more. There haven't been for a long time, with the exception of UKIP, but they are no longer valid.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

mewtoo said:


> And yet both of them are for creating the reason to build on the green belt.
> Solution? Vote for neither.


As someone who is passionate about the environment, even I accept we need to build more houses for people. We have a housing crisis so there is a valid reason to build on green belt. The difference between the tories & labour is the tories dont want to build social/affordable housing & labour do. The tories want to carry on deregulating laws which protect even our most valuable habitats - labour don't. A couple of the many, many reasons I could NEVER vote tory. They know the price of everything & the value of nothing.

Only 6% of land is built on & only a fraction of that is dedicated to housing - more land is actually dedicated to golf courses & grouse moors. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/faculty...tlas-reveals-six-percent-uk-built-on-1.744121


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

noushka05 said:


>


Can't see the 2nd & 3rd pics, but a Minion is always worth a 'Like'!


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> As someone who is passionate about the environment, even I accept we need to build more houses for people. We have a housing crisis so there is a valid reason to build on green belt. The difference between the tories & labour is the tories dont want to build social/affordable housing & labour do. The tories want to carry on deregulating laws which protect even our most valuable habitats - labour don't. A couple of the many, many reasons I could NEVER vote tory. They know the price of everything & the value of nothing.
> 
> Only 6% of land is built on & only a fraction of that is dedicated to housing - more land is actually dedicated to golf courses & grouse moors. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/faculty...tlas-reveals-six-percent-uk-built-on-1.744121


It's worth reminding people the Cameron Tory government tried/proposed to sell off our forests and green spaces, you know, the places looked after by the Forestry Commission.

People power worked with that.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> We have a housing crisis


That's not strictly true, is it.
We have a "too many people crisis", not a housing crisis.

I'd prefer a lower population and more land returned to forest, but Big Business wanted its cheap workers and the globalists wanted their destruction of the nation state, so we got lots more people and less green land instead.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

mewtoo said:


> That's not strictly true, is it.
> We have a "too many people crisis", not a housing crisis.
> 
> I'd prefer a lower population and more land returned to forest, but Big Business wanted its cheap workers and the globalists wanted their destruction of the nation state, so we got lots more people and less green land instead.


So now cheap work from EU would be replaced by cheap work from Commonwealth.
Same number of people.

Yet I could see no British white men with no record applying for those jobs that are " stolen "!
Yet I do not see the government support for your own talented young to study? But Britain had to import doctors, nurses, engineers, dentists, even teachers!!! From countries where universities are free .
@ newton I do understand you, after all you are an immigrant Pokémon from Pokémon world which is so much better than ours.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

cheekyscrip said:


> So now cheap work from EU would be replaced by cheap work from Commonwealth.


How about we have a system in which if we need to import labour then we can do so, and at the end of their contract then they can go back home.
That's how it worked with fruit-pickers.



cheekyscrip said:


> Yet I could see no British white men with no record applying for those jobs that are " stolen "!


I didn't say "stolen".
When a business can import cheap labour, it holds wages down, meaning that British workers don't want to do those jobs.
Recently, farmers and restaurant owners have been complaining that they are going to have to raise wages in those industries. When there are less workers, wages rise, and there is more of an incentive to work.



cheekyscrip said:


> Yet I do not see the government support for your own talented young to study? But Britain had to import doctors, nurses, engineers, dentists, even teachers!!! From countries where universities are free .


Universities are never free. It all has to be paid for.
We're quite capable of training our own people.
In the case of the medical profession, there is a cap on the number of doctors which are trained. Why, you may ask, is that?
When we import a doctor from, for example, India, we are depriving that country of something it needs.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

HarlequinCat said:


> It's an easy one for me. *Our Labour are all for building on green belt land* and don't get involved with what is happening in our community.
> 
> Conservative guy has been campaigning against building on green belt and fly tipping etc


You do realise that only around 6% of the UK has actually been built on and that we have a housing crisis in this country? I think we can spare a bit more land to put an affordable roof over peoples heads.


----------



## HarlequinCat (Nov 29, 2012)

Aye I do indeed know that, or something like it. There are brown field sites, and land that developers are sitting on that can be developed first before they think about green belt.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...g-crisis-developers-not-building-land-banking
This explains a bit of it. And the fact that affordable housing is not easy to find because of this.
Plus not all these developments are housing.

I am one of the people without a house. For one it's the price, house prices are over inflated. Second these new build are made so close together to maximise profits for developers, there's virtually no gardens.
A lot of people dont own their own home because they let. This is because new builds are often snapped up by landlords. The past 20 years the number of landlords and the amount of houses they own has risen dramatically, and this is partly to blame for house price increase and demand.

And of the new builds recently, there have been no affordable ones. They are or have, in this area, been 200,000 plus. Affordable would be half that for a house.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Zaros said:


> If we were on a free speech forum then we'd be able to post more sear words too.:Smug
> 
> But I think free speech is wonderful. It means I can choose to be careful what I say about any subject or topic under the sun.:Smuggrin


An interesting thing happened to me over at Sabre Roads (where I now put my anti Brexit posts on -now 701 pages!).

I was discussing the attempted coup on John Major's government by those "B*******s", something Major called them himself. The same b******** who are now in power.

I put in the word without the stars on my post seeing Major used it.

On looking at the post it had instantly starred the entire word!

Some clever software used to instantly conceal any bad language as soon as a post appears. I was quite impressed really.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

KittenKong said:


> An interesting thing happened to me over at Sabre Roads (where I now put my anti Brexit posts on -now 701 pages!).
> I was discussing the attempted coup on John Major's government by those "B*******s", something Major called them himself. The same b******** who are now in power.
> I put in the word without the stars on my post seeing Major used it.
> On looking at the post it had instantly starred the entire word!
> Some clever software used to instantly conceal any bad language as soon as a post appears. I was quite impressed really.


I believe you can easily fool such software by the simple application of the punctuation mark that can be found at the end of every sentence. Robots will always be outwitted by us clever b.astards.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

mewtoo said:


> You don't really understand what I'm trying to say.
> It doesn't matter though, sort of. In the coming years you will understand.


Can you tell me next week's winning lottery numbers Mystic Meg?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

HarlequinCat said:


> Aye I do indeed know that, or something like it. There are brown field sites, and land that developers are sitting on that can be developed first before they think about green belt.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...g-crisis-developers-not-building-land-banking
> This explains a bit of it. And the fact that affordable housing is not easy to find because of this.
> ...


Totally with you on this. I live in Cambridge and if the building meant that we'd have more affordable homes and student housing that is always being built freed up city houses for live in owners not buy to let them that would be fine. But it's all rabbit hutches and student flats which are a really good earner because most of it is snapped up by offshore owners wanting to invest because of the global businesses here like Amazon, Google and Microsoft. This has inflated houses. There is scant social.

We have been looking to move but the people wanting to buy my restored, 1920s home want to build on our back garden and turn my home into an house with multiple tenants. It is a quiet residential street so we were waiting on an offer from someone who wants to live here....but the offers from landlords are way over the asking price. So up the price goes. It's hideous and miserable.


----------



## 3dogs2cats (Aug 15, 2012)

We aren't having local elections this time, my mum1s area has a by election for her council this coming week, she has not had a single leaflet about any candidate, no idea how many or who the candidates are. She will go and vote because she strongly believes in the right to vote but I do think the seemingly lack of effort by the candidate/s whoever they may be is very poor.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

KittenKong said:


> Who do you intend to vote for in the May local elections? You can state your reason, even pro or anti Brexit although this is not intended to be a Brexit thread.
> 
> Some believe the local elections have no impact. I disagree. It was pointed out to me recently that UKIP did well in past local elections, though this was not repeated in a General Election.


i thought it was just local council elections, are there by -elections too? 
I dont think local council elections will make much difference to any forth coming General Election .


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> i thought it was just local council elections, are there by -elections too?
> I dont think local council elections will make much difference to any forth coming General Election .


Probably not, but they have influenced policy changes in the past.

As a Labour supporter who is also pro EU it would be hypocritical of me to vote for a party/leader with a very similar stance on Brexit to Theresa May and the Tories,ie by ruling out a public vote on a final deal (some argue it's called a second referendum).

As this is not a Brexit thread I'll not mention it further, but to clarify the reason I'll not be voting Labour.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

MollySmith said:


> We have been looking to move but the people wanting to buy my restored, 1920s home want to build on our back garden and turn my home into an house with multiple tenants. It is a quiet residential street so we were waiting on an offer from someone who wants to live here....but the offers from landlords are way over the asking price. So up the price goes. It's hideous and miserable.


 This is what has been happening here.  Its like living in a building site. The streets are filled with houses with scaffolding being extended. 
The community is being lost , people don't stay long and they don't care .


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

MollySmith said:


> Can you tell me next week's winning lottery numbers Mystic Meg?


I'm afraid that "timeline extrapolation" is a little different to predicting lottery numbers, but if I do work out how to do it then I will send you a tenner for your trouble.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

MollySmith said:


> Totally with you on this. I live in Cambridge and if the building meant that we'd have more affordable homes and student housing that is always being built freed up city houses for live in owners not buy to let them that would be fine. But it's all rabbit hutches and student flats which are a really good earner because most of it is snapped up by offshore owners wanting to invest because of the global businesses here like Amazon, Google and Microsoft. This has inflated houses. There is scant social.
> 
> We have been looking to move but the people wanting to buy my restored, 1920s home want to build on our back garden and turn my home into an house with multiple tenants. It is a quiet residential street so we were waiting on an offer from someone who wants to live here....but the offers from landlords are way over the asking price. So up the price goes. It's hideous and miserable.


From what you've said, you're a nationalist, but there aren't any nationalist parties to vote for, the only ones available being ones which cause the housing problem by importing loads of people. Spoil your ballot - it'll do your conscience the world of good.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

KittenKong said:


> a public vote on a final deal


They'd be far too afraid of the assassinations to give a final vote, as that would be the same as keeping us in the EU.

What'll happen is what has been happening all along: they'll screw us over as much as they can without pushing so far that people will turn up on their doorsteps and blow their brains out.

We voted to leave and then voted to put remainers in charge of leaving. Clever of us :Hilarious


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

3dogs2cats said:


> We aren't having local elections this time, my mum1s area has a by election for her council this coming week, she has not had a single leaflet about any candidate, no idea how many or who the candidates are. She will go and vote because she strongly believes in the right to vote but I do think the seemingly lack of effort by the candidate/s whoever they may be is very poor.


We're not yet had leaflets or callers but may well do nearer the time. 
I agree with your mum , Ive always voted because its my right but its getting that I don't know who to vote for . I'm might as well shut my eyes and stick in a pin in the ballot sheet .


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> We're not yet had leaflets or callers but may well do nearer the time.
> I agree with your mum , Ive always voted because its my right but its getting that I don't know who to vote for . I'm might as well shut my eyes and stick in a pin in the ballot sheet .


You're under no obligation to vote for any particular party.
Since every single candidate is going to harm you if elected, then the best thing to do at this time is to spoil your ballot.
This terrifies them. It tells them that "this person actually understand politics and therefore cannot vote for any of us, but still wishes to exercise their democratic right". Politicians hate an educated electorate.
The more people who spoil their ballot, the more pressure the politicians come under to create policies which actually benefit the people. Not only that, but to stick to those policies as well.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

MollySmith said:


> Can you tell me next week's winning lottery numbers Mystic Meg?


 That would be good . I could do with a million pounds


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

mewtoo said:


> Since every single candidate is going to harm you if elected, then the best thing to do at this time is to spoil your ballot.


I once spoiled my ballot paper by sketching a man's thing on it. :Writing

Could you ever imagine my surprise when I discovered it turned out to be a vote for the Tory party.:Meh


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Zaros said:


> I once spoiled my ballot paper by sketching a man's thing on it. :Writing
> 
> Could you ever imagine my surprise when I discovered it turned out to be a vote for the Tory party.:Meh


You must have travelled back to at least the year 1834 then 

I spoiled my ballot last time. There were five boxes, so I had to think of a suitable word, describing the candidates; one letter in each box.
Before that, I'd always voted for parties which were working towards leaving the EU.
I will never have to apologise to my descendants. Yay.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

The word I used cannot be written here, but imagine that you were on a TWA flight and you ordered more than one cup of tea.
I thought it described them perfectly.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

mewtoo said:


> That's how it worked with fruit-pickers.


That's how it used to work in Germany with the ''Gastarbeiter'' when I was a student there.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

mewtoo said:


> The word I used cannot be written here, but imagine that you were on a TWA flight and you ordered more than one cup of tea.
> I thought it described them perfectly.


Fairly sure that you are using a word for something of great beauty bringing much joy and happiness to both owner and beholder in quite the wrong place


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

mewtoo said:


> From what you've said, you're a nationalist, but there aren't any nationalist parties to vote for, the only ones available being ones which cause the housing problem by importing loads of people. Spoil your ballot - it'll do your conscience the world of good.


Nope, wrong.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

MollySmith said:


> Nope, wrong.


If you care about the people - I mean genuinely care - then you could well be a nationalist.
Of course to be sure, you'd also have to care about the culture, history, tradition, the land, the environment, the animals on that land, etc.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

mewtoo said:


> If you care about the people - I mean genuinely care - then you could well be a nationalist.
> Of course to be sure, you'd also have to care about the culture, history, tradition, the land, the environment, the animals on that land, etc.


I know how I am voting and who for already, based on my research and knowledge as opposed to theories and posts on a pet forum.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

MollySmith said:


> I know how I am voting and who for already, based on my research and knowledge as opposed to theories and posts on a pet forum.


I never said you couldn't..........

Here's something which you may or may not find useful, if you like to think about who you vote for:

A man *thinks* that he is a vegan, but he eats meat.
Since vegans cannot eat meat, he is not *actually* a vegan.

A man *thinks* that he cares about the people, but he votes Labour.
Since Labour's policies harm the people, he doesn't *actually* care about the people.


----------



## Dimwit (Nov 10, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> I know how I am voting and who for already, based on my research and knowledge as opposed to theories and posts on a pet forum.


You mean you won't be changing your vote because some stranger on the internet told you to? Shocking 
I shall be voting, not that it makes a blind bit of difference in my Tory stronghold but if I don't vote then I have no right to complain about the result


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Dimwit said:


> You mean you won't be changing your vote because some stranger on the internet told you to? Shocking


:Hilarious Absolutely , Molly should be thrown off PF in disgrace for showing commonsense. 



> I shall be voting, not that it makes a blind bit of difference in my Tory stronghold but if I don't vote then I have no right to complain about the result


 Same here. I voted Green last time , fat lot of good that did .


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Dimwit said:


> You mean you won't be changing your vote because some stranger on the internet told you to? Shocking
> I shall be voting, not that it makes a blind bit of difference in my Tory stronghold but if I don't vote then I have no right to complain about the result


A person should never change their vote because they are told to, but I haven't noticed anyone doing that here.

However, changing your vote because better information becomes available - that's a different matter.
My parents voted Labour/ LibDem until they actually bothered to think about what they were voting for.
And no, I didn't fill out their postal votes for them :Hilarious


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> Spoil your ballot - it'll do your conscience the world of good.


No, it will simply mean those in power will ignore you.



mewtoo said:


> They'd be far too afraid of the assassinations to give a final vote, as that would be the same as keeping us in the EU.


No, it's called democracy. Actually letting people vote when they know what it is they are voting for. Amazing idea that isn't it.



mewtoo said:


> Before that, I'd always voted for parties which were working towards leaving the EU.
> I will never have to apologise to my descendants. Yay.


Well if you have any, time will tell but all the evidence shows the opposite. Leaving the EU as advocated by those pushing the corporate agenda will harm the land, the environment, the animals on that land etc.Our descendants are going to lose out for nothing.



mewtoo said:


> However, changing your vote because better information becomes available - that's a different matter.


Only when that "better information" is based on real facts and reality rather than unfounded supposition.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Goblin said:


> No, it will simply mean those in power will ignore you.


It's exactly the opposite.
When a person does not turn up to the polling station, the government puts this down to a thing called "voter apathy", and these people are ignored because the government believes that they can't be bothered to vote, and therefore do not care which party is voted into government.
When a person makes the effort to turn up to the polling station, only to spoil their ballot, this tells the government that this person wants to take part in the democratic process, but cannot vote for any particular candidate, the reason being that none of the candidates have policies which are of value. It tells the government that this person is knowledgeable enough to know what they are doing.

If enough people spoil their ballots then the government is terrified because it means that lots of people actually understand the political system in the UK.
Politicians in the current time do not want the electorate to be educated in matters of politics, because the more educated a person is in this regard, the more the person realises that the system is a stitch-up and is not operated for the benefit of the people.
If enough people indicate that they understand the game which the parties are engaged in, then the parties will actually have to start making policies which will benefit the people. They do not want to do this.
Parties want the electorate to believe in soundbites and slogans and to be open to bribery; they do not want us to understand what we are really voting for.

So, if you do not find any of the parties appealing, then rather than stay at home, turn up and spoil your ballot. Send the parties a message.



Goblin said:


> No, it's called democracy. Actually letting people vote when they know what it is they are voting for. Amazing idea that isn't it.


Wrong again.
Having vote after vote until you get the result you want isn't at all democratic.
For interest, here's a list of EU votes, indicating when the result was either ignored or the electorate made to vote again:









If the government ignores the vote, it's conceivable that there will be assassinations, just as their are in other dictatorships.
What the government has been trying to do has been to keep us in the EU in all but name, without making it obvious that the people have been betrayed.



Goblin said:


> Well if you have any, time will tell but all the evidence shows the opposite. Leaving the EU as advocated by those pushing the corporate agenda will harm the land, the environment, the animals on that land etc.Our descendants are going to lose out for nothing.


You're on a roll :Hilarious
The corporate agenda was to stay in the EU, not to leave it. The EU is a corporatist entity, which is why Big Business loves the EU.
We're under no obligation to harm the land when we leave the EU. Quite the opposite in fact: we'll be free to create as robust environmental legislation as we like, and we will also be able to end mass immigration, which is incredibly harmful to the environment.



Goblin said:


> Only when that "better information" is based on real facts and reality rather than unfounded supposition.


I haven't said anything non-factual so far.
A vote for Labour is a vote for communism.
A vote for Conservatives is a vote for an authoritarian police state.
These are not things which will change because of what you, or I, or anyone else believes.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

A man *thinks* that by spoiling his ballot paper, he is *terrifying* the government with his knowledgeable rebellion.
Since he does so by writing "TW*TS" in the boxes he is *actually* dismissed by most as an immature irrelevance.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> It's exactly the opposite.


No, spoiling a vote doesn't mean a thing to any party. Only by voting for a rival is taken notice of. Who cares if you don't vote for X when at least you don't vote for the opposition.Not as though what's written on spoilt ballots becomes known.


> If enough people spoil their ballots then the government is terrified because it means that lots of people actually understand the political system in the UK.


Doesn't matter to them, power is power. Kid yourself all you want it's simply a numbers game, he who has the most votes wins.



> Politicians in the current time do not want the electorate to be educated in matters of politics, because the more educated a person is in this regard


You are right here at least. That's why those supporting leaving pushed people to ignore the experts.



> Having vote after vote until you get the result you want isn't at all democratic.


So you say people aren't allowed to change opinion. Strange, that's why we have regular general elections. Nice to know we don't live in a democratic country according to you.



> If the government ignores the vote, it's conceivable that there will be assassinations, just as their are in other dictatorships.


Well only 37% of the population, what about the other 63%. Of course that's ignoring the fact that this was a non-binding referendum and many of the issues raised and the reason people voted to leave can be resolved without leaving the EU. Then there's things like fracking...



> You're on a roll :Hilarious...
> The corporate agenda was to stay in the EU, not to leave it. The EU is a corporatist entity, which is why Big Business loves the EU.


So, you were fooled once again. Which side I wonder has people pushing for the relaxation of workers rights and "free market trade" outside of regulations? Which side does Rees-Mogg, Ian Duncan Smith support, both of which are pushing to reduce rights of workers? Tell me which side doesn't like the limitation which the EU enforces on companies and penalises them. Companies such as Microsoft etc? Which side has supports governments making deals behind closed doors with companies instead?



> We're under no obligation to harm the land when we leave the EU. Quite the opposite in fact: we'll be free to create as robust environmental legislation as we like, and we will also be able to end mass immigration, which is incredibly harmful to the environment.


Generally speaking, EU sets minimum standards, nothing to stop the UK having stricter ones. One has to wonder of course why it is that the UK pollution levels are so high that the EU is penalising them for not matching minimum standards. You also have to wonder why the UK was leading the fight against banning neocides within the EU.



> I haven't said anything non-factual so far.
> A vote for Labour is a vote for communism.
> A vote for Conservatives is a vote for an authoritarian police state.
> These are not things which will change because of what you, or I, or anyone else believes.


No, they are merely your opinion. An important difference.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> A man *thinks* that by spoiling his ballot paper, he is *terrifying* the government with his knowledgeable rebellion.
> Since he does so by writing "TW*TS" in the boxes he is *actually* dismissed by most as an immature irrelevance.


The government don't get to see what is written on a spoiled ballot, so all they know is that someone turned up to vote, then rejected all of the options on the ballot.

It doesn't matter how you spoil your ballot. You can write "none of the above" or "they are all crap" or draw a picture of a willy, or write "TW*TS", or another profanity of your choosing, or your favourite song lyrics, or anything you like.
All that counts is that the government know that X amount of people wanted to vote but knew that none of the candidates/ parties were worth voting for. This is the bit which scares them - "oh no, all of our lies and skullduggery were wasted on these people. M-maybe these people are immune to us? Please god, no, or we might actually have to make some decent policies in future, and stick to them!" :Hilarious

So there's no need to be upset, unless you think that people should be forced to vote for someone they don't want to.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Goblin said:


> No, spoiling a vote doesn't mean a thing to any party. Only by voting for a rival is taken notice of. Who cares if you don't vote for X when at least you don't vote for the opposition.Not as though what's written on spoilt ballots becomes known.


I've already explained above why vote-spoiling works.



Goblin said:


> Doesn't matter to them, power is power. Kid yourself all you want it's simply a numbers game, he who has the most votes wins.


I've already explained above why it matters to them, as well.



Goblin said:


> You are right here at least. That's why those supporting leaving pushed people to ignore the experts.


It's a good job that these phony experts were ignored, since they were all proven wrong in the time since the vote.
It's almost as if they were telling us what they wanted us to believe, rather than telling us what they really though.
Since they got it so wrong, I hope that they are no longer being employed as "experts" :Hilarious



Goblin said:


> So you say people aren't allowed to change opinion. Strange, that's why we have regular general elections. Nice to know we don't live in a democratic country according to you.


If you change your mind after a vote, then it's tough. You can't keep on voting until you get the result which the government wants.
If that were the case, then if there was a Conservative government, and the people voted for Labour in the election, then the Conservative government would make us all vote again until we voted Conservative. We'd have Conservatives forever, which would be awful.



Goblin said:


> Well only 37% of the population, what about the other 63%. Of course that's ignoring the fact that this was a non-binding referendum and many of the issues raised and the reason people voted to leave can be resolved without leaving the EU. Then there's things like fracking...


This was funny, but it was actually 52% which voted out.
:Spitoutdummy



Goblin said:


> So, you were fooled once again. Which side I wonder has people pushing for the relaxation of workers rights and "free market trade" outside of regulations? Which side does Rees-Mogg, Ian Duncan Smith support, both of which are pushing to reduce rights of workers? Tell me which side doesn't like the limitation which the EU enforces on companies and penalises them. Companies such as Microsoft etc? Which side has supports governments making deals behind closed doors with companies instead?


Big Business was on the side of staying in the EU, like I said. They like their constant stream of cheap workers, which is what the EU gives them.



Goblin said:


> Generally speaking, EU sets minimum standards, nothing to stop the UK having stricter ones. One has to wonder of course why it is that the UK pollution levels are so high that the EU is penalising them for not matching minimum standards. You also have to wonder why the UK was leading the fight against banning neocides within the EU.


When we are out of the EU, we can have whichever environmental standards we like, and if the government doesn't do as we wish then we can vote to remove them or encourage them to obey us.
We can do no such thing with the EU because it is a dictatorship.



Goblin said:


> No, they are merely your opinion. An important difference.


Nope, they aren't my opinions, since the facts are knowable.
Labour = communists. This is because Corbyn and his leadership, and Momentum, who have taken over the Labour Party, are communists.
Conservatives = authoritarian police-state-builders. This is because they have massively increased surveillance, want to record all of our phone calls, emails and social media history, are arresting and imprisoning people for saying things they don't want them to say, and have even attempted to assassinate their own citizens in prison. That, my friend, is how authoritarian police-state-builders roll, and they do this independently of whether or not you, or I, or anyone else wants to believe that they are doing this.

I really do wish that reality would mold itself around opinion because then it'd be my opinion that I am a billionaire, and tomorrow I would buy a big yacht and sail round the BVIs, but it doesn't, so I am stuck with the reality instead. Boohoo.

It's worth noting that a person can ignore reality, but he cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Vote wisely and often.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

On the matter of the OP, I shall vote Lib Dem.

Since Brexit has been raised, I certainly don't want a re-run of the referendum two years ago. That's done and dusted. I do, though, want a new vote; on the negotiated deal.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> Since Brexit has been raised, I certainly don't want a re-run of the referendum two years ago.


Good for you!



Arnie83 said:


> I do, though, want a new vote; on the negotiated deal.


My delight was short-lived :Hilarious

Aaaah, we've been right royally screwed over anyway.
We'd be out already if the government had any intention of honouring the vote.
We voted to put remainers in charge of Brexit, which was monumentally naive.
Maybe we ought to have all spoiled our ballot papers instead


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> Good for you!
> 
> My delight was short-lived :Hilarious
> 
> ...


Which party did you vote for before UKIP came along, or were you not old enough pre 1993?


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> Which party did you vote for before UKIP came along, or were you not old enough pre 1993?


Referendum Party was my first one.
All my friends who I hung out with at that time every day, voted Labour, or least they said they did. I said I was going to vote Labour too, haha.

Before that, my knowledge of the EU was limited. Like nearly everyone else, I didn't know much about it and just thought it was a trading organisation, which was a good thing to have, but at the same time I smelt a rat......
So off I went to do some learning, and I then knew what it really was, so I thought that I would do my bit to get out of it, for the good of my conscience.

If more people knew what it was, and who the people were who had pushed it from the beginning, and what their ideologies were, then less people would be keen on it, but usually people aren't all that interested in history or politics above and beyond a small baseline interest, which is a partial explanation for why the result was so tight in 2016.
The EU wasn't invented as a thing which was intended to be beneficial to the European peoples - it was just the latest incarnation of the age-old farmer/cattle thing. It was brought about for the reasons of power, money and ideology - same old, same old.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> I've already explained above why vote-spoiling works.


No you've stated an opinion, not the way voting works in reality. Reality is X votes for party A, Y votes for party B, X wins and decides. Party A doesn't care about spoilt votes as they've won.



> It's a good job that these phony experts were ignored, since they were all proven wrong in the time since the vote.


In case you missed it we've not left yet and thankfully May is doing what she can to minimise the damage. Still the difficulties remain don't they. abandon over 50 trade arrangements for what.. possible trade deals with a few on poorer terms. I'll still go to a doctor when ill rather than listen to a politician telling me what they want me to hear, especially when everything they have said has been a lie, not a prediction. 350million a week for the NHS becomes 200million a week loss for the UK which could have been spent on the NHS. In addition, nurses leaving and the NHS far worse off.



> If you change your mind after a vote, then it's tough. You can't keep on voting until you get the result which the government wants.
> If that were the case, then if there was a Conservative government, and the people voted for Labour in the election, then the Conservative government would make us all vote again until we voted Conservative. We'd have Conservatives forever, which would be awful.


You get that choice every 5 years if you didn't notice. Once out of the EU we are out and don't get to rejoin in as strong a position and with the advantages we have currently.



> This was funny, but it was actually 52% which voted out.


No, it was 52% of the eligible voters who voted. Of those many voted for things not related to the EU or could be resolved without leaving. Of those nobody knew what they voted for. Wait, you did. Tell me then what the solution to the Ireland/Northern Ireland border is?



> Big Business was on the side of staying in the EU, like I said. They like their constant stream of cheap workers, which is what the EU gives them.


Hillarious, now back that up. Soundbites aren't enough. In case you missed it, big business generally doesn't rely on a constant stream of cheap workers. If anything they rely on exploting people due to lessoning of workers rights etc. They still want to employ professionals.



> When we are out of the EU, we can have whichever environmental standards we like, and if the government doesn't do as we wish then we can vote to remove them or encourage them to obey us.


Ignoring the previous government record, ignoring the fact the EU sets minimums and the goverment could always do more.



> We can do no such thing with the EU because it is a dictatorship.


Again, your rhetoric does not match reality and the facts. Did you not vote for your MEP?



> Nope, they aren't my opinions, since the facts are knowable.


No, they are your interpretations, your opinon.



> It's worth noting that a person can ignore reality, but he cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Vote wisely and often.


Have you thought of taking your own advice?


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> Referendum Party was my first one.


So you didn't vote before 1997?


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Goblin said:


> No you've stated an opinion, not the way voting works in reality. Reality is X votes for party A, Y votes for party B, X wins and decides. Party A doesn't care about spoilt votes as they've won.


No, I've told you how it is.
I work in the political sphere. Politicians utterly hate the idea of a large number of people spoiling their ballots. Another thing they hate is the idea of people boycotting elections. That's why people boycott elections in some countries.

This is what politicians like:
-for us to trust them
-to sit in front of your TV and lap up what you are seeing and hearing
-to be easily bribed with your own, or someone else's, money (they really love this one)
-people who put personal standard of living above all else
-to be dazzled by shiny things and presentation
-spending lots of money on analysing why people voted Y instead of Z

This is what they don't like:
-people who become educated in matters of politics and history
-people who value the rights of their children and grandchildren
-people who exercise their rights
-people who engage with them after the election is over
-people who put honour and decency above money

It's not just about winning an election; the more people who spoil their ballots, the less dishonest the politicians will have to be in order to secure those votes.



Goblin said:


> In case you missed it we've not left yet


We were told by "experts" :Hilarious that after the vote, house prices will fall, half a million people will become unemployed, things would become unaffordable, World War 3 will happen :Hilarious.
And yet, everything got better.



Goblin said:


> and thankfully May is doing what she can to minimise the damage.


Discarding a dictatorship does not damage a country; it enhances it.
There is no damage to minimise.
However, as the EU's top agent in the UK, Treason May is doing her best to damage us without _looking_ like she is doing her best to damage us.



Goblin said:


> Still the difficulties remain don't they.


Nope.



Goblin said:


> abandon over 50 trade arrangements for what.


For having trade deals which benefit us more, of course.



Goblin said:


> I'll still go to a doctor when ill rather than listen to a politician telling me what they want me to hear


Well no, because you enjoy having your views assigned to you by authority.



Goblin said:


> especially when everything they have said has been a lie, not a prediction.


We've already talked about what the experts :Hilarious said to frighten us.



Goblin said:


> 350million a week for the NHS becomes 200million a week loss for the UK would could have been spent on the NHS,


The bus never promised an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. Here is a picture of it. Tell me where it says we'll give an extra £350 million a week to the NHS.











Goblin said:


> nurses leaving and the NHS far worse off.


Well that's not true, as at 62,000 (as of last June), the number of NHS staff working in hospitals in England is at the highest it's ever been.
Not only that, but all EU nationals already here are allowed to stay here.
So why would they leave? Is it because they are snowflakes who are upset because they didn't get the result they wanted.
Are they all going to say, "waaa, waaa, you didn't vote how we wanted you to vote so now you are going to have to train your own nurses instead of stealing them from abroad"?
:Hilarious



Goblin said:


> You get that choice every 5 years if you didn't notice.


We get a General Election every five years. What we don't get is a referendum on EU membership every couple of years until we get the "right" result :Hilarious
We're not Ireland :Hilarious



Goblin said:


> No, it was 52% of the eligible voters who voted. Of those many voted for things not related to the EU or could be resolved without leaving.


Yes, 52%. We won. You lost. Get over it, like most remain voters already have.



Goblin said:


> Of those many voted for things not related to the EU or could be resolved without leaving.


Leaving the EU cannot be resolved without leaving :Hilarious



Goblin said:


> Hillarious, now back that up. Soundbites aren't enough. In case you missed it, big business don't rely on a constant stram of cheap workers.


:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious
Big business > love cheap labour > hmmmmmm, how do we keep labour costs down > oh I know, let's import hundreds of thousands of people a year, to suppress wages > then the board can all buy an extra yacht each year



Goblin said:


> Ignoring the previous government record, ignoring the fact the EU sets minimums and the goverment can do more.


I don't know what else to say except than what I have already said: we can have whichever environmental standard we like once we are a sovereign nation again. No one needs the EU to set environmental policy.



Goblin said:


> Again, your rhetoric does not match reality and the facts. Did you not vote for your MEP?


Yeah, it is a UKIP one. They are working to bring down the EU from the inside. May they be successful in this glorious endeavour.



Goblin said:


> No, they are you interpretation, your opinon.


Not true. They are knowable.
Actually, you're right. I have just magicked a billion quid into my bank account after all, because it is my opinion that I am a billionaire.
I also just had the opinion that 2+2=947.38. This has caused all the satellites to explode.
OMG, I just had the opinion that Germany won World War 2. Jetzt reden wir alle deutsch.



Goblin said:


> Have you thought of taking your own advice?


Ich mache. Deshalb führen wir dieses Gespräch.

Du hattest Recht mit dieser Meinung. Es verändert wirklich die Realität!

Anyway, I have an idea for you.
We are leaving the EU but you don't want to.
So here's what we will do.

I will pretend to be the EU for you.
I will make the laws that you have to live under, and you can do nothing about it.
You will send me £1000 per month.
I will send you back £300 and I will tell you how it must be spent, and you will have to put your own money into the projects as well.
I will send a load of people to live in your house. You must accept these people. You must build extra bedrooms and toilets for them out of your own money.
I will also send you some criminals to live in your house. You will not mind about this. They will enrich you.
You will fly my flag above your house. I will fine you if you do not.
If you get fed up with the arrangement, I will frighten you by telling you that your mobile phone will not work when you visit me.
If you want to end this arrangement, I will make you keep repeating the sentence until you say what I want you to say.

Sounds like a great deal for me, but not for you.
But let's do it anyway.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> So you didn't vote before 1997?


Why do you ask?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Arnie83 said:


> On the matter of the OP, I shall vote Lib Dem.
> 
> Since Brexit has been raised, I certainly don't want a re-run of the referendum two years ago. That's done and dusted. I do, though, want a new vote; on the negotiated deal.


 Wasn't the Brexit thread fun  :Hilarious


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

kimthecat said:


> Wasn't the Brexit thread fun  :Hilarious


Looking back, I do feel a certain nostalgia for its cast of characters.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> Why do you ask?


You said you had only ever voted for political parties who were in favour of leaving the EU. I couldn't think of any before the slightly absurd Referendum party.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> No, I've told you how it is.
> I work in the political sphere. Politicians utterly hate the idea of a large number of people spoiling their ballots. Another thing they hate is the idea of people boycotting elections. That's why people boycott elections in some countries.


Such a great impact isn't it.. 10's of ballot papers out of 1000's, politicians shake in dread. I work in an environment which use facts and reality.



> This is what they don't like:
> -people who become educated in matters of politics and history
> -people who value the rights of their children and grandchildren
> -people who exercise their rights
> ...


In other words, like those still pushing remain.



> We were told by "experts" :Hilarious that after the vote, house prices will fall, half a million people will become unemployed, things would become unaffordable, World War 3 will happen :Hilarious.
> And yet, everything got better.


Nobody stated WWIII other than media misquoting what was said. As for impact, those were predictions and worst case. UK is losing 200million a week due to brexit and we haven't left yet so full impact has not actually been felt. This is different from the outright lies and misinformation of the leave campaign hardly any of which is possible.



> Discarding a dictatorship does not damage a country; it enhances it.


What dictatorship? Wait, you mean the UK is a dictatorship as the EU has a far better form of democracy in the use of proportional representation.



> For having trade deals which benefit us more, of course.


How.. let's see EU 50+trade arrangements covering most of the world. UK when leaving has none. Wants to go alone. Tell me which other country in the world has that sort of preferential status for trade? What was that quote by someone who knows and has experience in trade negotiations and the trade department. Something like "...We are trading in a 3 course meal for a packet of crisps...".



> The bus never promised an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. Here is a picture of it. Tell me where it says we'll give an extra £350 million a week to the NHS.


Ah that's right, they never promised anything did they, they relied on the gullibility of those voting leave. What did people vote for which is based on reality?



> Well that's not true, as at 62,000 (as of last June), the number of NHS staff working in hospitals in England is at the highest it's ever been.


Tragic isn't it that profession reports paint a far different story. They also report up to 90% reduction in recruitment of trained EU personel.



> Not only that, but all EU nationals already here are allowed to stay here.
> So why would they leave? Is it because they are snowflakes who are upset because they didn't get the result they wanted.
> Are they all going to say, "waaa, waaa, you didn't vote how we wanted you to vote so now you are going to have to train your own nurses instead of stealing them from abroad"?


Showing your true colours aren't you. They may be allowed to stay but that status can be changed at any time on a whim of the government. Why would you want to stay where you are not wanted and work in an already abusive environment? People here legally for decades, paying taxes are currently being denied NHS care and deported.



> We get a General Election every five years.


So you agree people are allowed to change their mind in a democratic process. How about when new information is available and they know what they are voting for.



> Yes, 52%. We won. You lost. Get over it, like most remain voters already have.


Yep you won "something" you do not even know the terms of or what it means. As Nigel Farage stated before the result.. If it's close like 52 to 48% is not over.



> Big business > love cheap labour > hmmmmmm, how do we keep labour costs down > oh I know, let's import hundreds of thousands of people a year, to suppress wages > then the board can all buy an extra yacht each year


Codswallop. Statistics show immigration does not suppress wages in general. The only area where it may is lowest wage bracket and that is disputable.



> I don't know what else to say except than what I have already said: we can have whichever environmental standard we like once we are a sovereign nation again. No one needs the EU to set environmental policy.


Don't need to leave to set higher environment standards. What leaving does mean is the government can ignore things which protect the environment and people. Pollution levels being a simple example.



> I will make the laws that you have to live under, and you can do nothing about it.


Ah.. that line again. The leave thinking, democracy = always getting your way.

Strikes me you are great at soundbites. You are good at those but as yet unable to back that up with details based on reality. Sums up most of those pushing leave.

I'll leave this be as you are unable to back up your statements despite being asked to.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

mewtoo said:


> I never said you couldn't..........
> 
> Here's something which you may or may not find useful, if you like to think about who you vote for:
> 
> ...


OMG I had NO idea. Wow and there was me thinking I wanted a bacon sandwich


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Go spoil your ballot paper if you wish if that suits the borough of London where you live. I have made my voting decision based on matters I believe in, which I campaign for, that have bugger all to do with your hyperbole, a matter which I am not sharing with a random stranger on a pet forum. If you really wanted to make a difference you’d spend a lot less time on here and more out there in the real world. It never ceases to amaze me how many bedroom politicians a pet forum attracts.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Goblin said:


> I'll leave this be as you are unable to back up your statements despite being asked to.


Want me to let you know if they come back with a solution to the Ireland/NI border problem?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Arnie83 said:


> Looking back, I do feel a certain nostalgia for its cast of characters.


Shame a few people left , i still miss them


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> Want me to let you know if they come back with a solution to the Ireland/NI border problem?


Will not hold my breath.. Of course will also wait for solutions for Euratom membership, chemicals and medicine regulation, and all the arcana of international trade such as Rules of Origin, Most Favoured Nation status, or Mutual Recognition Agreements. Then of course there's the issue of energy. If Brexit means the UK leaving the EU's single energy market, it will have to invest more in new electricity generating capacity, paying higher prices - arguably with less security of supply - and accept a bigger role for the state in the energy sector. This at a time when manufacturing is going to be hit by additional costs due to red tape and higher prices in general for raw material. Instead we'll continue to get lots of soundbites but nothing to back anything up with details and certainly no advantages to leaving.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Will not hold my breath.. Of course will also wait for solutions for Euratom membership, chemicals and medicine regulation, and all the arcana of international trade such as Rules of Origin, Most Favoured Nation status, or Mutual Recognition Agreements. Then of course there's the issue of energy. If Brexit means the UK leaving the EU's single energy market, it will have to invest more in new electricity generating capacity, paying higher prices - arguably with less security of supply - and accept a bigger role for the state in the energy sector. This at a time when manufacturing is going to be hit by additional costs due to red tape and higher prices in general for raw material. Instead we'll continue to get lots of soundbites but nothing to back anything up with details and certainly no advantages to leaving.


No advantages?!?!?

We'll be able to go through the non-EU passport control with our traditional blue passports (Fabrique en France) and a feeling of national pride that no-one here has had for 40 years.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> You said you had only ever voted for political parties who were in favour of leaving the EU. I couldn't think of any before the slightly absurd Referendum party.


They were a single issue party.
It was about conscience: knowing the damage which the other parties would do, Referendum Party were the only choice. If conscience wasn't an issue, then I would have just voted for whichever party promised me the most of my own, or other people's, money.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Goblin said:


> Such a great impact isn't it.. 10's of ballot papers out of 1000's, politicians shake in dread. I work in an environment which use facts and reality.


Ten out of a thousand doesn't frighten them.
A hundred out of a thousand gives them the heebie-jeebies.
Five hundred out of a thousand gives them brown trousers.

"B-b-but why aren't they voting for us, when we promised them loads of free money and told them that we were strong and stable and were for the many not the few? Can it be - gulp - that they are onto us?"

Here is how our system works:
Election time: must vote Tory to keep Labour out
Election time + 5: must vote Labour to keep Tories out
Election time + 10: must vote Tory to keep Labour out
Election time + 15: must vote Labour to keep Tories out

Considering the damage which this _revolving dictatorship_ has caused to our country and people, it is essential, for the good of future generations and for those alive now, to break this cycle.
The best way to do this is to force parties to create policies which have benefit to the people, either by voting for a truly decent party (unlikely since it's now illegal to create a party of benefit to the people, and also too late to do so), or to spoil your ballot.



Goblin said:


> In other words, like those still pushing remain.


Yes. Remain MPs in particular do not want an educated electorate.



Goblin said:


> Nobody stated WWIII other than media misquoting what was said. As for impact, those were predictions and worst case. UK is losing 200million a week due to brexit and we haven't left yet so full impact has not actually been felt. This is different from the outright lies and misinformation of the leave campaign hardly any of which is possible.


It was remain which lied, not leave.
If you want people to remain enslaved, then you have to tell them lies. If you want them to be free, then you must tell them the truth.



Goblin said:


> What dictatorship? Wait, you mean the UK is a dictatorship as the EU has a far better form of democracy in the use of proportional representation.


The EU is a dictatorship because it has no democratic accountability.
The UK is a revolving dictatorship, but now that we are leaving the EU, we have the opportunity to change this.



Goblin said:


> How.. let's see EU 50+trade arrangements covering most of the world. UK when leaving has none. Wants to go alone. Tell me which other country in the world has that sort of preferential status for trade? What was that quote by someone who knows and has experience in trade negotiations and the trade department. Something like "...We are trading in a 3 course meal for a packet of crisps...".


When the UK leaves the EU, we will be on WTO terms until we strike our own trade agreements. We will immediately be better off.
At the moment, we are paying more for food, to protect French farmers, and more for clothes, to protect Italian garment producers. When we are out of the EU, we will have to do neither.



Goblin said:


> Ah that's right, they never promised anything did they, they relied on the gullibility of those voting leave. What did people vote for which is based on reality?


People who want their freedom are not gullible. Those who do not value freedom are the gullible ones.



Goblin said:


> Tragic isn't it that profession reports paint a far different story. They also report up to 90% reduction in recruitment of trained EU personel.


Why is it that you believe that this country cannot train its own personnel? Are you some kind of racist?



Goblin said:


> Showing your true colours aren't you. They may be allowed to stay but that status can be changed at any time on a whim of the government. Why would you want to stay where you are not wanted and work in an already abusive environment? People here legally for decades, paying taxes are currently being denied NHS care and deported.


No. Once they are granted citizenship, then they cannot be removed.
Regarding Windrush, since they were not issued with the proper documents at the time, they were unable to prove their citizenship. If you don't want screw-ups like that, then don't vote Conservative.



Goblin said:


> So you agree people are allowed to change their mind in a democratic process. How about when new information is available and they know what they are voting for.


You can change your mind, but once you have voted in a referendum, then that's it - you can't keep voting until you get the answer the government wants.



Goblin said:


> Yep you won "something" you do not even know the terms of or what it means. As Nigel Farage stated before the result.. If it's close like 52 to 48% is not over.


With each year that goes by, there will be less and less people throwing their toys out of the pram because they didn't get what they wanted.
We would like to keep some eternal remainers though, for the entertainment value.



Goblin said:


> Codswallop. Statistics show immigration does not suppress wages in general. The only area where it may is lowest wage bracket and that is disputable.


Mass immigration creates a situation in which the minimum wage becomes a maximum wage for an entire section of society.
If mass immigration didn't suppress wages, then why are farmers and restaurant owners moaning that they are going to have to start paying their wowkers more?



Goblin said:


> Don't need to leave to set higher environment standards. What leaving does mean is the government can ignore things which protect the environment and people. Pollution levels being a simple example.


No, it means that the people can vote for a government which promises to increase environmental standards. With the EU, this is not possible.



Goblin said:


> Ah.. that line again. The leave thinking, democracy = always getting your way.
> 
> Strikes me you are great at soundbites. You are good at those but as yet unable to back that up with details based on reality. Sums up most of those pushing leave.
> 
> I'll leave this be as you are unable to back up your statements despite being asked to.


I haven't said anything non-factual.

I like these conversations. They remind me of when the Jehovah's Witnesses come round and you try to explain to them that the world is older than 10,000 years.

The EU is a religion for some, the same as socialism and Christianity.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

MollySmith said:


> Go spoil your ballot paper if you wish if that suits the borough of London where you live. I have made my voting decision based on matters I believe in, which I campaign for, that have bugger all to do with your hyperbole, a matter which I am not sharing with a random stranger on a pet forum. If you really wanted to make a difference you'd spend a lot less time on here and more out there in the real world. It never ceases to amaze me how many bedroom politicians a pet forum attracts.


Good for you. A person should always vote in a way which they see fit.
Just don't moan when you get what you vote for.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> You can change your mind, but once you have voted in a referendum, then that's it - you can't keep voting until you get the answer the government wants.


Arguably true. If the referendum question is different, though, it becomes a new referendmum



mewtoo said:


> I haven't said anything non-factual.


You really have, on many occasions.



mewtoo said:


> The EU is a religion for some, the same as socialism and Christianity.


And patriotism.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> Arguably true. If the referendum question is different, though, it becomes a new referendmum


Be careful with that, because it's what happened to Ireland (and others).
The question was changed slightly in order to get the result which was originally wanted.



Arnie83 said:


> You really have, on many occasions.


I've done no such thing. What I've done is to say it how it is, and then for a religious mind to reject those things because of feelings.
Same as when I tell the certain people that the earth is older than 10000 years. I'm lying, apparently, and have been brainwashed.
For religiously-minded people, what is a fact to them is whatever _feels _right.



Arnie83 said:


> And patriotism.


I agree. Patriotism is daft, as it does not take into account the quality of the country at a given time.
There's no point in being a patriot now, but there was at times in the past and there may be again around 40 years in the future. Maybe.......


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> Ten out of a thousand doesn't frighten them.


oh dear, you once again fail on the reality of the situation don't you.



> Considering the damage which this _revolving dictatorship_ has caused to our country and people, it is essential, for the good of future generations and for those alive now, to break this cycle.


Ah so now UK is a dictatorship.



> Yes. Remain MPs in particular do not want an educated electorate.


Strange considering remain voters on average tend to be more educated and rely on evidence rather than soundbites don't you think.



> It was remain which lied, not leave.


Really.. too bad once again the evidence shows otherwise. Boris Johnson actually stated 350million could be spent on the NHS yet that figure was a lie. You have the promise negotiations would be easy.. they would never be. Take back sovereignty.. we never lost it, even article 50 admits that. Even the person responsible for the bus admits the leave campaign lied to win. So tell me, what promises of the leave campaign are actually based on reality? You cannot even stick to the truth on this thread whilst pushing the leave agenda.



> The EU is a dictatorship because it has no democratic accountability.


You mean if you spoil your ballot. Well true enough, those who do vote are part of the process providing democratic accountability.



> The UK is a revolving dictatorship, but now that we are leaving the EU, we have the opportunity to change this.


Love to know how the EU resticted the UK democratic system. Maybe you can expand on your claim. Now the UK isn't democratic of course. Can you please state your definition of democracy as it's different to that normally used.



> When the UK leaves the EU, we will be on WTO terms until we strike our own trade agreements. We will immediately be better off.


Erm, no. We were already under *WTO terms or better *with the rest of the world. We'll have additional customs checks and red tape for a lot of things going abroad or entering the country. Must of missed where you answered which country has better trade terms than the EU with the majority of the world, even which country comes close to the benefits?



> People who want their freedom are not gullible. Those who do not value freedom are the gullible ones.


Freedom.. a meaningless word when you advocate removing a level of holding your own government to account don't you think. Tell me how are we not free in the EU and how leaving increases the freedom. Oh you mean losing out on protections such as workers/human rights.



> Why is it that you believe that this country cannot train its own personnel? Are you some kind of racist?


You really are showing your true colour here aren't you. Who says they cannot. It costs money, money which isn't available and we'll have less of it due to brexit. As it is applications to study nursing in England have already fallen for a second year, dropping by a third since the Government removed bursaries in 2017.Removal of these bursaries means prospective nurses and midwives have to pay £9,000 a year in fees.



> No. Once they are granted citizenship, then they cannot be removed.


Who says they want citizenship?



> You can change your mind, but once you have voted in a referendum, then that's it - you can't keep voting until you get the answer the government wants.


Erm.. referendum was non-binding so why not? Besides which it's not about voting again about something when you do not know what you are voting. It's about being able to make an informed choice. You know what sensible, educated people would support.



> Mass immigration creates a situation in which the minimum wage becomes a maximum wage for an entire section of society.


Not even worth discussion as you are unable to back anything up.



> No, it means that the people can vote for a government which promises to increase environmental standards. With the EU, this is not possible.


Complete rubbish. EU never stops people from voting for any government, they even allow people like Farage to be an MEP.



> I haven't said anything non-factual.


ROFL.... Haven't had such a laugh for ages.

Unfortunately you seem unable to provide facts.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> Be careful with that, because it's what happened to Ireland (and others).
> The question was changed slightly in order to get the result which was originally wanted.


Thanks for the advice.

When the question is completely different, it's a new referendum.



mewtoo said:


> *I've done no such thing*. What I've done is to say it how it is, and then for a religious mind to reject those things because of feelings.
> Same as when I tell the certain people that the earth is older than 10000 years. I'm lying, apparently, and have been brainwashed.
> For religiously-minded people, what is a fact to them is whatever _feels _right.


You really have. But there is little point engaging you with contrary facts because your belief in what you say borders on the Papal.

E.g. You met my quoting of the Full Fact data by dismissing Full Fact - despite their analysis being far from unique - and a somewhat patronising definition of confirmation bias.

It was also rather an ironic 'education' since you seem to interpret many things as confirmation of the EU's inherent iniquity when, to others, they are nothing of the sort. For you, though, it is those others who are biased and faith-based, while you are simply "saying it how it is".



mewtoo said:


> I agree. Patriotism is daft, as it does not take into account the quality of the country at a given time.
> There's no point in being a patriot now, but there was at times in the past and there may be again around 40 years in the future. Maybe.......


The only 'point' in being a patriot now, in the past, and in the future, is to feel comfort in being part of a made-up group, and take vicarious pride in the achievement of its other 'members'. Unless one considers conflict with other like groups to be a laudable objective.

But I should perhaps have stuck to my earlier decision not to engage, because there really is little point when faced with such faith. So, if your 1997 vote really was your first, then I offer some advice as someone who has been around a good many years longer than you.

Always allow for the possibility that you just might be wrong.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Goblin said:


> oh dear, you once again fail on the reality of the situation don't you.


Oh lord.



Goblin said:


> Ah so now UK is a dictatorship.


The UK, as a two party system in which it doesn't matter which one you vote for because you get screwed either way, is a _revolving dictatorship_, because the power revolves between the two parties.
As a province of the EU, the UK is part of a larger dictatorship.



Goblin said:


> Strange considering remain voters on average tend to be more educated and rely on evidence rather than soundbites don't you think.


You're confusing the level of qualifications a person gains at university, with a person's intellectual honesty and wisdom.
A degree in any particular subject does not convey on a person a greater ability to translate reality, nor give them greater decency.
What actually happened was that because there are more university educated people among the remainers rather than among the leavers, the remainers felt that they had more to lose from change.
This is why the main excuse for remaining was one of economics, but the main excuse for leaving was one of sovereignty.



Goblin said:


> Really.. too bad once again the evidence shows otherwise. Boris Johnson actually stated 350million could be spent on the NHS yet that figure was a lie. You have the promise negotiations would be easy.. they would never be. Take back sovereignty.. we never lost it, even article 50 admits that. Even the person responsible for the bus admits the leave campaign lied to win. So tell me, what promises of the leave campaign are actually based on reality? You cannot even stick to the truth on this thread whilst pushing the leave agenda.


After Brexit, we can spend as much as we like on the NHS. I hope that we don't though. The problems with the NHS are not ones of money; they are of waste and rapidly increasing population.
We did lose sovereignty as part of the EU, as we were not able to elect nor remove those who made our laws. Had we stayed in the EU, we would have lost more, until we had none.
The bus did not lie; it made a suggestion.



Goblin said:


> You mean if you spoil your ballot. Well true enough, those who do vote are part of the process providing democratic accountability.


No. The spoiling of a ballot, as long as it is done by the person casting the vote and not by the state or those counting the vote, is a democratic thing.



Goblin said:


> Love to know how the EU resticted the UK democratic system. Maybe you can expand on your claim. Now the UK isn't democratic of course. Can you please state your definition of democracy as it's different to that normally used.


This has already been covered.



Goblin said:


> Erm, no. We were already under *WTO terms or better *with the rest of the world. We'll have additional customs checks and red tape for a lot of things going abroad or entering the country. Must of missed where you answered which country has better trade terms than the EU with the majority of the world, even which country comes close to the benefits?


We were, and are, bound by the EU's trade deals with other countries. When we leave, we will not.



Goblin said:


> Freedom.. a meaningless word when you advocate removing a level of holding your own government to account don't you think. Tell me how are we not free in the EU and how leaving increases the freedom. Oh you mean losing out on protections such as workers/human rights.


Leaving the EU will not be removing a level of holding your government to account.



Goblin said:


> You really are showing your true colour here aren't you. Who says they cannot. It costs money, money which isn't available and we'll have less of it due to brexit. As it is applications to study nursing in England have already fallen for a second year, dropping by a third since the Government removed bursaries in 2017.Removal of these bursaries means prospective nurses and midwives have to pay £9,000 a year in fees.


It costs money, and therefore it is better to steal trained workers from abroad......
My god.



Goblin said:


> Who says they want citizenship?


If they don't want citizenship, then there is no problem.



Goblin said:


> Erm.. referendum was non-binding so why not? Besides which it's not about voting again about something when you do not know what you are voting. It's about being able to make an informed choice. You know what sensible, educated people would support.


The question was simple: leave the EU or stay in the EU. All the information was available for a person to be able to make an informed choice.
Thank god the informed choice people won.



Goblin said:


> Not even worth discussion as you are unable to back anything up.


I can't keep on explaining things to you over and over again.
I ought to follow my own rule of not debating religious people.



Goblin said:


> Complete rubbish. EU never stops people from voting for any government, they even allow people like Farage to be an MEP.


With the EU, we are stuck with the bones which they decide to throw to us. No longer.



Goblin said:


> ROFL.... Haven't had such a laugh for ages.
> 
> Unfortunately you seem unable to provide facts.


Religious people don't accept facts.
What's the point in me providing loads of links for that purpose?


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Blimey I thought this thread was about "Local Government Election 2018" but I see it didn't take long for Brexit to be mentioned. BTW I thought Brexit threads weren't allowed anymore?


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Actually - apologies, I would contain myself as promised, but I skipped through your earlier post and missed this until @Goblin quoted it. I can't let it go without comment.



mewtoo said:


> When the UK leaves the EU, we will be on WTO terms until we strike our own trade agreements. *We will immediately be better off.*
> At the moment, we are paying more for food, to protect French farmers, and more for clothes, to protect Italian garment producers. When we are out of the EU, we will have to do neither.


It really is absolute tosh. But please do provide a link to any analysis at all that suggests it is correct, and doesn't include the word 'Minford'.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> Thanks for the advice.
> 
> When the question is completely different, it's a new referendum.


Absolutely.

_Shall we leave the EU_ and _shall we build more hospitals, _for example, are different questions_. _Different referendums_._



Arnie83 said:


> You really have. But there is little point engaging you with contrary facts because your belief in what you say borders on the Papal.
> 
> E.g. You met my quoting of the Full Fact data by dismissing Full Fact - despite their analysis being far from unique - and a somewhat patronising definition of confirmation bias.
> 
> It was also rather an ironic 'education' since you seem to interpret many things as confirmation of the EU's inherent iniquity when, to others, they are nothing of the sort. For you, though, it is those others who are biased and faith-based, while you are simply "saying it how it is".


Full fact isn't independent. I already told you before that a bunch of people set up "fact checking" websites with the aim of giving gullible people something to back up their rubbish with.
A website which says that they are unbiased and independent isn't necessarily unbiased and independent.
The level of our laws and regulations which come from the EU is 62%+, regardless of what people who call themselves fact checkers say. Reality exists as it is; it doesn't alter itself because people want other people to believe otherwise.
Cor blimey.

There are several reasons for the differences.
A friend of mine is pro-EU because he makes money from it. He knows perfectly well what the EU is, but he doesn't care because he doesn't want to lose his income.
Another friend is pro-EU because he is religiously-minded. It makes him feel nice to be pro-EU, so pro-EU he is. He knows perfectly well that the millions of migrants being allowed in by the EU represent a threat to the well-being of his daughter, but he doesn't care, because his feelings matter to him more than anything.
Another friend voted remain because they were afraid their house price would decrease. Money again.
Another friend voted remain because they were afraid of change to their quality of living. Money again.
Another friend thinks he will lose him farm subsidies when we live the EU. Money again.

When it comes to the leave people, it was about "taking back control" or in other words, being sovereign in their own land, and passing this right on to their descendants.

You're comparing the views of people who value money above all else, and who value feelings above all else, to people who want to pass on basic rights to their children.
All views are not created equal. The views of decent and moral people are superior to those who are not decent and moral - it's as simple as that.

What if someone said that it's ok to let dogs fight for money and someone else said that it is not ok - would those two views be equal simply because they are views? Of course not. One view has value and the other has none.

The view that the British people should be ruled by a foreign government has no value.



Arnie83 said:


> The only 'point' in being a patriot now, in the past, and in the future, is to feel comfort in being part of a made-up group, and take vicarious pride in the achievement of its other 'members'. Unless one considers conflict with other like groups to be a laudable objective.


If you are talking about a place like Syria or Iraq, then it is a made-up group. If you are talking about the UK, then it was not (it is now). Hence patriotism was valuable before, because the achievements of those people were down to the shared culture, history and genetic make-up. But actually, we are talking about nationalism now.
Patriotism is useless now. The UK is just a geographical area with a government in it now.



Arnie83 said:


> But I should perhaps have stuck to my earlier decision not to engage, because there really is little point when faced with such faith. So, if your 1997 vote really was your first, then I offer some advice as someone who has been around a good many years longer than you.


It's impossible for me to have any faith in anything. You're barking up the wrong tree with that one.



Arnie83 said:


> Always allow for the possibility that you just might be wrong.


I agree. Before I knew what the EU was, I was very much in favour of it.
I was wrong, and then corrected myself when better information presented itself.
But then I'm the type who would have fought in the French Resistance rather than have been a collaborator.
That's what the Brexit vote showed - those who are prepared to sacrifice for the good of others and those who want an easy life and riches.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

stockwellcat. said:


> BTW I thought Brexit threads weren't allowed anymore?


Nope, brexit thread was closed due to the amount of memes and someone took offence. Simply nobody started a brexit specific thread again. It's interesting though, leave argument exactly the same discredited soundbites and unable to provide facts or details when asked. Soundbites as though they were facts simply as they are repeated.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

"Living sovereign and free in our own land" - worst soundbite ever.
Won't Merkel come and save us from these evil people who want to make their own laws?

:Hilarious


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> The level of our laws and regulations which come from the EU is 62%+, regardless of what people who call themselves fact checkers say. Reality exists as it is; it doesn't alter itself because people want other people to believe otherwise.


Nope, that's not fact. Actually nobody can determine the amount of laws and regulations which come from the EU. Many of the things which come from the EU for example aren't laws and regulations and the UK government decides how to implement them. Try again.



> When it comes to the leave people, it was about "taking back control" or in other words, being sovereign in their own land, and passing this right on to their descendants.


We never have lost sovereignty. Yet another lie. Even article 50 written by the government stated that your claim is a lie. If we didn't have sovereignty we wouldn't be able to leave for a start.



> You're comparing the views of people who value money above all else, and who value feelings above all else, to people who want to pass on basic rights to their children.


You mean human and workers rights obviously which the leavers want to dispose of as they are inconvenient.



> The view that the British people should be ruled by a foreign government has no value.


Repetition of a lie makes it no more true than the first time. Perhaps you can tell me which foreign government rules us.



> Hence patriotism was valuable before, because the achievements of those people were down to the shared culture, history and genetic make-up. But actually, we are talking about nationalism now. Patriotism is useless now. The UK is just a geographical area with a government in it now.


Well thankfully most people I know detest nationalism, which is responsible for many atrocities throughout history. They do support patriotism and are proud to the british which I agree isn't the same.



> It's impossible for me to have any faith in anything. You're barking up the wrong tree with that one.


You seem to have plenty of faith in proven liars such as those politicians pushing leave.



> That's what the Brexit vote showed - those who are prepared to sacrifice for the good of others and those who want an easy life and riches.


And here comes the nationalism part again. What good for others? You haven't provided anything based on reality.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> _Shall we leave the EU_ and _shall we build more hospitals, _for example, are different questions_. _Different referendums_._


Do you want to Leave / Remain in the EU

and

We are leaving the EU, and the government have negotiated these terms. Do you approve them or not?

are different questions. Different referenda.



mewtoo said:


> If you are talking about a place like Syria or Iraq, then it is a made-up group. If you are talking about the UK, then it was not (it is now). Hence patriotism was valuable before, because the achievements of those people were down to the shared culture, history and genetic make-up. But actually, we are talking about nationalism now.
> Patriotism is useless now. The UK is just a geographical area with a government in it now.


The UK, and England before it, are made-up groups. All countries are made-up groups. They spring only from the minds of people and that is only where they exist.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Goblin said:


> Nope, brexit thread was closed due to the amount of memes and someone took offence. Simply nobody started a brexit specific thread again. It's interesting though, leave argument exactly the same discredited soundbites and unable to provide facts or details when asked. Soundbites as though they were facts simply as they are repeated.


This, if you haven't noticed is a pet forum not a brexit forum. I have nothing to prove or say to you on Brexit anymore. Simples.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

stockwellcat. said:


> This, if you haven't noticed is a pet forum not a brexit forum. I have nothing to prove or say to you on Brexit anymore. Simples.


Didn't ask you to either  In case you missed it, this is general chat, frequently nothing to do with pets.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Arnie83 said:


> Can't see the 2nd & 3rd pics, but a Minion is always worth a 'Like'!


Thank you

You cant see the 2nd & 3rd pics because they were actually failed attempts of the 1st pic lol. I deleted loads more failures till I eventually cracked it!












mewtoo said:


> That's not strictly true, is it.
> We have a "too many people crisis", not a housing crisis.
> 
> I'd prefer a lower population and more land returned to forest, but Big Business wanted its cheap workers and the globalists wanted their destruction of the nation state, so we got lots more people and less green land instead.


Of course its true - only a tiny fraction of land is built on, I provided you with the proof. Do you realise most immigrants are in living in private rented accomodation? They're not the reason theres a housing crisis. And big landowners own most of the country- how can we 'take our country back' when we dont even know who owns it?? FOIs Guy Shrubsole has being doing some excellent work to find out - 
(and the tories flogged off our profitable Land Registry  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...d-registry-have-links-to-tax-havens-q9vfqw029 )
*Utopian thinking: to 'take back control' of England, we must find out who owns it*

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/20/take-back-control-england-land-ownership



mewtoo said:


> From what you've said, you're a nationalist, but there aren't any nationalist parties to vote for, the only ones available being ones which cause the housing problem by importing loads of people. Spoil your ballot - it'll do your conscience the world of good.


Nationalism is destroying this country- just look at the shameful windrush scandal? Appears you have fallen hook line & sinker by the lies peddled by the right wing gutter press the like of liars like Farage, Mogg, May et al, Cambridge Analytica. 'People from other countries havent created the housing crisis - successive governments have. Migrants are the convenient scapegoat. Its a well established tactic of tactic of the rich & powerful to blame minorities - wake up Mewtoo.












mewtoo said:


> If you care about the people - I mean genuinely care - then you could well be a nationalist.
> Of course to be sure, you'd also have to care about the culture, history, tradition, the land, the environment, the animals on that land, etc.


Nationalists don't care much about people who come here from other countries to live & work do they?. Nationalists dont care about refugees desperate for our help. And that doesnt sound very much like Molly to me. And many of the nationalists I've come across don't give a to$$ about the environment - they are desperate for us to leave EU so we can rip up all that red tape & regulations which protect our environment, nature - animals (and us). They even want us out of the Paris climate agreement Many nationalists dont believe the science on climate change. They are wilfully ignorant to one of the greatest threats facing our living planet.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

mewtoo said:


> How about we have a system in which if we need to import labour then we can do so, and at the end of their contract then they can go back home.
> That's how it worked with fruit-pickers.
> 
> I didn't say "stolen".
> ...


University is free in Poland, or Finland and many other European countries. Governments even offer support for poorer students to pay for students' lodging and there is always free soup and bread in canteen.
So every Polish kid if passes the exam can study whatever they want. For free. There are scholarships and awards for best students too and opportunities for part time or freelance work tax free.

So if much poorer countries could make efforts to invest in their youth why Britain can't? 
It is so important that there is a hope for everyone. How frustrating it must be for talented young people that if they go to uni they would end with crippling debts?
I know... lived among students in UK and could tell that most were middle class kids.
Your place of birth determines so much. If you are a kid of teen working class mum, you had it. The fees for uni practically keep the class system rigid.
It is unfair. Access to education should be equal in any democratic country. Your ability and your efforts should decide whether you can study not your parents status.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Healthcare, education, water, food and shelter should be basic rights worldwide.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Thank you
> 
> You cant see the 2nd & 3rd pics because they were actually failed attempts of the 1st pic lol. I deleted loads more failures till I eventually cracked it!
> 
> ...


Thank you @noushka05 I certainly am not even remotely any of those things and fairly sure that I'm in control of my faculties enough to be certain of my answer. Despite @mewtoo protests!


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Nope, brexit thread was closed due to the amount of memes and someone took offence. .


That's putting it mildly! It was doing a lot of damage to PF and people were leaving and the Mods had the good sense to close it .


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

stockwellcat. said:


> Blimey I thought this thread was about "Local Government Election 2018" but I see it didn't take long for Brexit to be mentioned. BTW I thought Brexit threads weren't allowed anymore?


I thought that too . 
I was going to post more about the Local elections but there doesn't seem much point .
Why bother staring any threads like this if they lead back to brexit .


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

kimthecat said:


> That's putting it mildly! It was doing a lot of damage to PF and people were leaving and the Mods had the good sense to close it .


It was not compulsory to go there, get offended and leave.
Other people left or stopped posting because were gagged and their thread closed for no good reason.
Remember: no thread will damage you if you chose not to read it or post there.
How hard is for adults to ignore topic that annoy them?
Plenty of people in dog/ cat chat that never even go to GC because they only want to talk about pets.

I am sorry, but if the title is Brexit then you might expect it will be about Brexit and if the topic irritates you, why would you join the thread and then give grief to mods ?

I do not read about certain topics because it upsets me, and do not demand to close those threads.

It could be said about any controversial, contentious topic.
In any parts of the forum.
If anyone gets upset but cannot stop themselves from compulsive need to read about the very thing that upsets them and then complaining to moderators about it, though no one made any personal attacks on them, just posted a funny meme... then such people should not go to any forums.

I think closing the most heated debate and most interesting too, lots of thought and effort of many contributed to it, because of the true Moaners - was unfair and sort of buckling down to unreasonable requests.

The OP of that thread left the forum and I miss her.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> That's putting it mildly! It was doing a lot of damage to PF and people were leaving and the Mods had the good sense to close it .


The moderators decision must of course be respected, even if I personally disagreed with closing what was an interesting thread or two.

The Brexit thread is still going strong over on Sabre Roads. Now on page 702, which is where I now contribute.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> I thought that too .
> I was going to post more about the Local elections but there doesn't seem much point .
> Why bother staring any threads like this if they lead back to brexit .


I had a feeling this thread was going to end up on the topic of Brexit which is a shame considering it was about the local elections originally. I have nothing else to say about Brexit and will not be contributing to that topic. The local elections would have been a good topic to talk about but it is off putting seeing how the topic has changed.

Regarding the local elections it will be very interesting to see what happens but I don't feel it will impact things very much as they are just local elections. I personally have only had a leaflet from Labour to date (my area is a strong labour area) but I will not be voting this year as I stated before.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

KittenKong said:


> The moderators decision must of course be respected, even if I personally disagreed with closing what was an interesting thread or two.
> 
> The Brexit thread is still going strong over on Sabre Roads. Now on page 702, which is where I now contribute.


It must be damaging Sabre Roads... beware of pot holes and sinking ones...

I think everything that happens on political scene has effect on local elections. Most candidates belong to some party or another?
Even the poll is about parties.
Personally I suspect many people will just stay home - too dissatisfied with them all to bother.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

KittenKong said:


> The moderators decision must of course be respected, even if I personally disagreed with closing what was an interesting thread or two.


Yes indeed. Most threads start off well but in the end become repetitive though using the Ignore button helps .



> The Brexit thread is still going strong over on Sabre Roads. Now on page 702, which is where I now contribute.


What is Sabre Roads?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

stockwellcat. said:


> I had a feeling this thread was going to end up on the topic of Brexit which is a shame considering it was about the local elections originally. I have nothing else to say about Brexit and will not be contributing to that topic. The local elections would have been a good topic to talk about but it is off putting seeing how the topic has changed.


Yeah  i feel more talk about Brexit is a waste of time. Time is precious .



> Regarding the local elections it will be very interesting to see what happens but I don't feel it will impact things very much as they are just local elections. I personally have only had a leaflet from Labour to date (my area is a strong labour area) but I will not be voting this year as I stated before.


Agree. Ive had a leaflet from the Tories but nothing from labour . Labour were out in force today and delivering leaflets but I havent had one yet . Its annoying because I do want their side of the story . The cons are saying Look how much we have done and that labour voted against most of the stuff they have done . They've managed not to put the rates up and we have weekly bin collections so I think they will win the seats.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

kimthecat said:


> Mods had the good sense to close it .


I seem to recall it was closed several times but rose like a phoenix from the ashes under a selection of pseudonyms.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Calvine said:


> I seem to recall it was closed several times but rose like a phoenix from the ashes under a selection of pseudonyms.


:Hilarious Yeah true !


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

On the subject of local elections - they don't apply to us this year so pointless trying to work it all out. However the choice tends to be UKIP, Tory, Liberal or Green. We have been more or less abandoned by Labour.

I quite like the town council elections - we are of a size where there is a fair chance that you know the people standing and therefore can make a far better judgement of them than in the bigger elections where you only have their election statement to go on, unless someone has been brave enough to knock on the door.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

The majority of people vote in local elections on the basis of, and as a comment on, national politics. It is hardly surprising that the most important political topic in the UK for 45 years should therefore raise its head in a thread on local elections, since it will determine where many votes go.

The easiest way to avoid it would have been to keep the Brexit thread open. (I'm still not entirely sure why it was closed; people upset by memes? Really?) The other website I post on has 22,500 posts on its Brexit thread and is still going strong, (although, to be fair, the Leavers have gone quiet lately).


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Do find it interesting that those pushing to leave the EU push to close down any discussion of it. As Arnie83 has stated it's a topic which does affect the vast majority of people both in the UK and outside. As such it influences all politics.

You'll notice on this thread parties are mentioned far more than candidates. That's interesting as it shows it is party level participation which tends to be national rather than local level. If the referendum showed anything.. the reality of voting is not necessarily for what the purpose of the vote is for.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Maybe because we are absolutely sick to death of it ! If you bothered to spend more time here you might have noticed that we banned from mentioned it !! Perhaps that has been relaxed now so why you start a new one and not take other threads off topic.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Perhaps you can look at why objectively, if you think that’s true. Perhaps put yourself in their shoes for 10 minutes. I voted Green and Remain, as did our local area, but I was one who asked the mods to look at the Brexit thread and the mods can see who has left and why and are the ones who get to look at reports. I don’t doubt that their decision was the right one for petforums. 

Unless I get more information on the new candidates, I won’t be voting in our local elections this time.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

kimthecat said:


> Maybe because we are absolutely sick to death of it ! If you bothered to spend more time here you might have noticed that we banned from mentioned it !! Perhaps that has been relaxed now so why you start a new one and not take other threads off topic.


Elephant in the room?
After all it is a pet forum 
No, I am not aware that Brexit is a banned word.
Sad if you are sick and tired of it... because it will be affecting our life for many years to come.
For example my homeland is about to lose the sovereignty we have , or we will lose our livelihoods.

Hardly possible not to think about it.
If it does not have dire impact on your life, count yourself really lucky.
But remember not all are.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> No, I am not aware that Brexit is a banned word.
> .


Weren't you? 
Talking about it was banned . it was referred to as the B word .


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

kimthecat said:


> Weren't you?
> Talking about it was banned . it was referred to as the B word .


Now then what about talking about censorship?
Shall we call it The C Word?

Seems the ban on cartoons progressed...

Quelle surprise....


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Elles said:


> Unless I get more information on the new candidates, I won't be voting in our local elections this time.


I feel the same because its a straight choice of Labour or Cons . No Greens or Lib dems etc .


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> Now then what about talking about censorship?
> Shall we call it The C Word?


how about a W word . Whine . whine. whine . Dear God. Please make it stop !


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

kimthecat said:


> how about a W word . Whine . whine. whine . Dear God. Please make it stop !


Absolutely. This is what poor mods heard from those offended Moaners who saw a meme.. In pms..not in the open...
This thread thanks to @Arnie83 , @Goblin , @MrsZee @noushka05 or @Satori had lots of very interesting facts not to mention the fun posts...

No one was forced to contribute or read! 
Why those who didn't like just left it alone and went to other threads?

I do not understand.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I’ve already said more than once that I reported the thread and I complained on the thread itself, in the open as you say, a number of times. Why are you not listening cheeky? 

Petforums is a moderated forum where its members should feel welcome. Moderators spent days reading through the thread and decided to close it. Why can’t people respect their decision?


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Elles said:


> I've already said more than once that I reported the thread and I complained on the thread itself, in the open as you say, a number of times. Why are you not listening cheeky?
> 
> Petforums is a moderated forum where its members should feel welcome. Moderators spent days reading through the thread and decided to close it. Why can't people respect their decision?


Because of the consequences.
B word. C word...
Z word...
Mods also have right to be wrong.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> Because of the consequences.
> .


 What consequences? 
The world is going to come to an end ? 
Seriously , no one has to be a member here. perhaps you should stick to forums that are more to your taste.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

But not everyone thinks they are wrong! Me for one. Plus they are the mods and their decision is final. They would not have taken it lightly.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Elles said:


> But not everyone thinks they are wrong! Me for one. Plus they are the mods and their decision is final. They would not have taken it lightly.


Absolutely. 
Anyone would think this forum was the BBC news !


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

kimthecat said:


> What consequences?
> The world is going to come to an end ?
> Seriously , no one has to be a member here. perhaps you should stick to forums that are more to your taste.


Or maybe those who do not let me Brexit thread could just stick to many other threads.
I find it very patronizing to go and complain just because I do not like the thread and feel I have right to do it on behalf of the new members or anyone else.

Made sense to have a Brexit thread and discuss it there much as possible.
Makes sense to have sub forum for debates.

To ban the most important political topic that affect all political and social issues, that has impact on all debates from local elections to Windrush?
That actually makes them all censored and therefore rather pointless if we cannot say what really we think?

Mods can ban me.?
I do not need to go.

I do respect Mods' decision. But I do not agree with it.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

@cheekyscrip there are Brexit Forum websites on the internet (try searching on google) and they aren't hard to find and are very active, why does the topic have to be on a pet forum where people come for advice on there pets? It does not affect the local elections which is what this thread is about.

Local elections will not determine much really except who is going to stand in ones constituency, it has no impact on who runs the country as they will continue running the country as local election results won't trigger a general election.

I thought the mods said no more Brexit threads on here (I apologise if I am mistaken) as there had been to many complaints and people leaving.

It seems the title of this thread was a guise to start another Brexit thread.

That is all I have to say on this. I agree @kimthecat this is forum is not the BBC news.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

stockwellcat. said:


> @cheekyscrip there are Brexit Forum websites on the internet (try searching on google) and they aren't hard to find and are very active, why does the topic have to be on a pet forum where people come for advice on there pets? The only people complaining are those that want to moan about Brexit because they don't want it to happen. It does not affect the local elections which is what this thread is about.
> 
> Local elections will not determine much really except who is going to stand in ones constituency, it has no impact on who runs the country as they will continue running the country as local election results won't trigger a general election.
> 
> ...


As others already pointed Brexit is relevant to local elections, as people vote for parties rather than individuals. 
The ruling party, the Tories, on the whole threw their weight behind Brexit. The Labour sits on the fence looking very uncomfortable indeed.
Just a gentle reminder.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> As others already pointed Brexit is relevant to local elections, as people vote for parties rather than individuals.


I am not getting entangled into a debate on this and falling in the trap of doing so.


> The Labour sits on the fence looking very uncomfortable indeed.
> Just a gentle reminder.


This isn't a general election it is a local election. Not everyone gets to vote, only the areas that didn't vote last year in the local elections. The local elections have zero impact on who runs the country they are to do with who stands in your local area but only in the areas who didn't have a local election last time. My constituency is up for a local election I am not voting as none of the candidates are offering anything new to my constituency. That decision I have made is nothing to do with Brexit. Local elections won't affect that I am affraid.

Now to avoid getting entangled in a debate on this I will bail out of this.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

For someone who is complaining about a thread being closed you are going the right way to get this one closed too...


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

stockwellcat. said:


> I am not getting entangled into a debate on this and falling in the trap of doing so.This isn't a general election it is a local election. Not everyone gets to vote, only the areas that didn't vote last year in the local elections. The local elections have zero impact on who runs the country they are to do with who stands in your local area but only in the areas who didn't have a local election last time. My constituency is up for a local election this year but none of the candidates represent me hence why I am not voting. That decision I have made is nothing to do with Brexit. Local elections won't affect that I am affraid.
> 
> No to avoid getting entangled in a debate on this I will bail out of this.


I follow... time to bed ... no point of getting this thread closed...
( Cameron is a Tory...if Miliband won ...or if Labour put David instead of Red Ed at the helm we would all be friends...).


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> For someone who is complaining about a thread being closed you are going the right way to get this one closed too...


Oops, we cross posted. 
Nite, nite...


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> #
> Made sense to have a Brexit thread and discuss it there much as possible.
> Makes sense to have sub forum for debates.
> 
> ...


Well you know if we discuss it here on PF we can reverse Brexit , put Labour in as government , get Trump impeached etc etc and make pigs fly . 

ETA These are local council election and as has already been said , it a about local matters like bin collection not Brexit .
You talk about freedom of speech and censorship ; we want to talk about local elections and when it gets turned into a Brexit thread with the same long argumentative posts that we have read countless times and then ignoring our attempts to get the thread back on track , then we are in effect being stifled and put off from taking part in the thread . 
That's how censorship is done on Social media .

This is General *chat* , we talk about all sorts of stuff and political stuff too but it gets out of control sometimes and some members make it all about them and their rights etc regardless of how other members feel and that's not good for this forum.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Well you know if we discuss it here on PF we can reverse Brexit , put Labour in as government , get Trump impeached etc etc and make pigs fly .


No but maybe one person decides to vote another way after reading... Oh it will not be those so vocal about stopping any brexit discussion but that is a minority. Until a couple of people started complaining about brexit discussions the atmosphere in this thread was calm. Also interesting that the complaint was brexit, not the actual content breaking any forum rules.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@Goblin . Ive added about more to my post . Please read it .

As far as Im aware the complaint was about going way off topic and that talking about or starting Brexit threads had been banned. I would say that is breaking rules.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Goblin said:


> No but maybe one person decides to vote another way after reading... .


Another way in local elections? 
do you mean in another referendum ?

look, why dont you start another Brexit thread then , and let us get on with the subject in hand here which is the local council elections .


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Another way in local elections?
> do you mean in another referendum ?


No I don't mean another referendum. Like the referendum for brexit, for some it was simply a protest vote against the government, the same will happen in local elections. It's supposed to be about local matters, it rarely is for many voters. It's why if the tories take a drumming, it weakens the government despite not actually affecting her majority. I'm a fan of proportional representation and local elections actually give a clearer idea of how people would vote in a general election if it wasn't locked into basically a 2 party system.



> look, why dont you start another Brexit thread then , and let us get on with the subject in hand here which is the local council elections .


Nothing to stop you continuing to discuss your views outside brexit. Nobody has tried to stifle any discussion apart from a 2 or 3 people. This isn't a brexit thread although brexit does play a role in some people's decision making so is a valid part of the discussion. Are you going to say nobody is going to vote against the tories simply as they do not like the way May is negotiating with the EU? That applies to both those who support leave and remain.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Goblin said:


> This isn't a brexit thread although brexit does play a role in some people's decision making so is a valid part of the discussion. Are you going to say nobody is going to vote against the tories simply as they do not like the way May is negotiating with the EU? That applies to both those who support leave and remain.
> Nothing to stop you continuing to discuss your views outside brexit. Nobody has tried to stifle any discussion apart from a 2 or 3 people. This isn't a brexit thread although brexit does play a role in some people's decision making so is a valid part of the discussion. Are you going to say nobody is going to vote against the tories simply as they do not like the way May is negotiating with the EU? That applies to both those who support leave and remain.


You could have just made the point that brexit may influence some people in local council elections but instead we had a hashed up version of the Brexit threads, really not necessary . Some of you got involved with a pro brexiteer and you all wanted to prove each others points wrong on the benefits and draw backs of leaving and that makes it a brexit thread .

Again , why dont you simply start another brexit thread and members can see what the thread about is by the title and can join or not as they chose.

These are local council elections , I doubt if the majority will use it as a protest vote against brexit. Voting against local Tory councillors wont get the Government out .


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Also interesting that the complaint was brexit, not the actual content breaking any forum rules.





kimthecat said:


> @Goblin .
> 
> As far as Im aware the complaint was about going way off topic and that talking about or starting Brexit threads had been banned. I would say that is breaking rules.


Ive not seen a response to my post . Do you have anything to say ?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> You could have just made the point that brexit may influence some people in local council elections but instead we had a hashed up version of the Brexit threads, really not necessary . Some of you got involved with a pro brexiteer and you all wanted to prove each others points wrong on the benefits and draw backs of leaving and that makes it a brexit thread .


Called right to reply. Why hobble debate.. simply put me on ignore.



> Again , why dont you simply start another brexit thread and members can see what the thread about is by the title and can join or not as they chose.


Again, don't like it, you can ignore it if you choose. You may also put me or anyone else on ignore.



> These are local council elections , I doubt if the majority will use it as a protest vote against brexit. Voting against local Tory councillors wont get the Government out .


No it will not get the tories out, could well force May out or get her to change stance on things. Are you saying local elections results do not affect the government? If you are that is rubbish.



kimthecat said:


> Ive not seen a response to my post . Do you have anything to say ?


Already answered. Local elections are affected by UK general topics, one of those which concern people at the moment is brexit. It is therefore relevant. Can you point out a post from the mods banning brexit content? I never saw any ban, even in the threads locked due to people arguing with the mods. To ban brexit all UK political threads including this one and any topic also possibly affected would need to be banned for at least the next couple of years.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Called right to reply. Why hobble debate.. simply put me on ignore.


I'm not hobbling debate  I don't make the rules here. I don't wish to put you ignore. i don't dislike you enough or find you irritating enough to do that .
Again, a full blown hashed up discussion wasn't necessary. It is OT.



> No it will not get the tories out, could well force May out or get her to change stance on things. Are you saying local elections results do not affect the government? If you are that is rubbish.


no I saying depending on the area , I don't think enough people will use their local council election vote so that it makes much difference about Brexit . A local election for an MP could well do.



> Already answered. Local elections are affected by UK general topics, one of those which concern people at the moment is brexit. It is therefore relevant. Can you point out a post from the mods banning brexit content? I never saw any ban, even in the threads locked due to people arguing with the mods. To ban brexit all UK political threads including this one and any topic also possibly affected would need to be banned for at least the next couple of years.


I'm sure some people are concerned about Brexit but they are also concerned about their hospitals being closed and building of houses on their local green belt etc . I think the majority would vote more on local issues which are Tory issues too, to influence their local council.

A lot of us were under the impression it was banned after the Ultimate Brexit thread was locked . There was fall out from that. If that's not correct or things have changed perhaps those who feel stifled and censored should start one.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Okay. My local election vote will go to the Lib Dems because they propose something nationally that I am not allowed to mention. As such I can no longer contribute to this thread.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> I'm not hobbling debate  I don't make the rules here. I don't wish to put you ignore. i don't dislike you enough or find you irritating enough to do that .
> Again, a full blown hashed up discussion wasn't necessary. It is OT.
> 
> no I saying depending on the area , I don't think enough people will use their local council election vote so that it makes much difference about Brexit . A local election for an MP could well do.
> ...


Then brexit is extremely relevant when it comes to the NHS & building on green belt. We know it will be catastrophic for our NHS - we know it will mean lowering environmental protections further if we want a trade deal with the USA & other countries outside the EU. Council elections serve as a protest vote for many. Brexit will impact our lives in so many ways, trying to stifle debate on the subject is ridiculous.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@stockwellcat. Are u voting in london or lincolnshire?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Again, a full blown hashed up discussion wasn't necessary. It is OT.


Response was limited to points raised, not a full blown discussion. In fact the main people causing bad feeling have been those trying to cut off a discussion which seemed to be completed at that time anyway. New points of discussion certainly were not being raised to continue the discussion, the government's own impact assesment, the potential loss of 25% of farming, especially at the small farm level...



> no I saying depending on the area , I don't think enough people will use their local council election vote so that it makes much difference about Brexit . A local election for an MP could well do.


Any "vote" outside general elections are used by many as a form of protest. This has been the case for local elections, by-elections, european elections and even the eu referendum for years. It's one of the recognised problems for referendums and a reason they are non-binding as the question asked isn't neccesarily what people vote on.



> I'm sure some people are concerned about Brexit but they are also concerned about their hospitals being closed and building of houses on their local green belt etc . I think the majority would vote more on local issues which are Tory issues too, to influence their local council.


Would love for people to use their votes on local matters as well. Actually voting for the purpose of the vote.. wow. If people had actually voted on the question of the EU referendum rather than other unrelated topics, immigration, especially non-eu immigration as one example, the result would have been different.

Local representation is also the idea of an MP but it doesn't work that way though due to parties and whips. It comes down to government accountability. How do you "show the government" you do not approve? General election every 5 years or whenever you get a chance to vote and it's grouped by political party?


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> These are local council elections , I doubt if the majority will use it as a protest vote against brexit. Voting against local Tory councillors wont get the Government out .


A good many will do though. If Labour and the Tories do really badly we know Theresa May will press on regardless but might inspire more moderate's in the party to rebel and stand up to her a lot more, as what happened to Thatcher with the Poll Tax, (I'm forever grateful to Michael Heseltine).

Likewise should Labour do badly with Corbyn.

It could signal the end of both of them as leaders.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> @stockwellcat. Are u voting in london or lincolnshire?


I am registered to vote in my local area in London which is a Labour strong hold but I will not be voting this year as neither party candidates standing in my area are offering anything new for my constituency. When I move towards the end of July I will register in my new area in Lancashire. My dad also has a local election this year in Lancashire but isn't voting for the same reasons as me.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

KittenKong said:


> It could signal the end of both of them as leaders.


Doubt it very much as local elections are to do with your local constituency and local matters.
My area will no doubt stay labour as it is a strong labour area. People tend to vote on the performance of their local MP candidate standing in their area on local issues.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

If the very word Brexit was banned, a heck of a lot of participants to this thread would have received thread reply bans.   Likewise, the "B word" thing was started by members off their own bat, probably after I (and I'm deliberately taking personal ownership of that here) stepped in on a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit - I don't think it was even a _political_ thread - and asked members to keep it on topic and keep Brexit out of *that one thread*.

The latest Brexit thread did see a lot of members leaving the forum. What many of you don't know, is that until I received a PM asking me to take a look at it, I blamed myself for those leaving. Then I spent 5 days and nights going through that thread and realised that, if anything, I played but a minor part in those members decisions to leave. I also got sick and tired of the number of meme posts which added very little to the discussion except cheap digs at certain politicians or Leave voters (and yes, the vast majority of them were from Remainers), and I could see it from the side of those who felt - rightly or wrongly - as though they were the butts of those jokes. Frankly, if I'd been a leave voter (and not a mod), I probably would have left, too.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

To balance it out, if you look back to the "EU Referendum" thread there was a large number of pro Brexit memes, some of which appeared to be from far right sources. I remember asking a poster where he/she got them from. My request was refused.

I don't recall any requests from pro EU supporters to have them removed.

Still, at the end of the day we're all guests here and must respect the moderators decision is final.

Just thought I'd mention it.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Arnie83 said:


> Okay. My local election vote will go to the Lib Dems because they propose something nationally that I am not allowed to mention. As such I can no longer contribute to this thread.


That's a shame. 
Actually, Ive had enough 
too.
@KittenKong Sorry


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

LinznMilly said:


> If the very word Brexit was banned, a heck of a lot of participants to this thread would have received thread reply bans.   Likewise, the "B word" thing was started by members off their own bat, probably after I (and I'm deliberately taking personal ownership of that here) stepped in on a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit - I don't think it was even a _political_ thread - and asked members to keep it on topic and keep Brexit out of *that one thread*.
> 
> The latest Brexit thread did see a lot of members leaving the forum. What many of you don't know, is that until I received a PM asking me to take a look at it, I blamed myself for those leaving. Then I spent 5 days and nights going through that thread and realised that, if anything, I played but a minor part in those members decisions to leave. I also got sick and tired of the number of meme posts which added very little to the discussion except cheap digs at certain politicians or Leave voters (and yes, the vast majority of them were from Remainers), and I could see it from the side of those who felt - rightly or wrongly - as though they were the butts of those jokes. Frankly, if I'd been a leave voter (and not a mod), I probably would have left, too.


Thx for explaining. We genuinly.thought it was banned.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

The very best solution: sub forum for political/ social/ environment topics where newbies are allowed after certain number of posts ( no longer newbies then...) and the GC for small talk about the weather, sofa covers, leggings etc...
If people leave because of any topic - their choice, no thread is compulsory.
I see much, much nastier attacks on pf members on Dog Chat, attacks at personam, .. how that then impresses the new members?
Or the old ones...


----------

