I'm a bit worried about how they are going to carry out these indicative votes. Though I haven't seen confirmation on how they will do it. I think the idea is to find a compromise but I feel like the parliament is so polarised that the compromise options in the middle that would pick up more support as second or third choices might be eliminated first if we try to whittle them down and leave a divisive final vote. I would prefer a bucklin voting system as while that might confuse many voters it should be fine to force parliament to find common ground.
The European Parliament has voted in favour of Artical 13. Might have to dust of my yellow vest tomorrow in preparation.
Yup. That one passing is basically down to France. Though our (democratically elected) main party MEPs voted for it. Could have prevented it if all our MEPs voted against. This will effect us whether we are in Europe or not. YouTube wont take down the filters they will now have to make just because we are not EU, they'll apply it to everyone. Another example of something affecting us we could control in the EU but can't by being out of it.
But we have not left yet, and we didn't stop it, so whats the point of being able to, if nobodies willing to?
You're asking the point of democracy? You could put it another way and say we were able to put it through and did. As was the will of our British democratically elected officials.
Cut and pasted from my inbox this morning:- Dear Stjabbo, Parliament is going to debate the petition you signed – “Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.”. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584 The debate is scheduled for 1 April 2019. Once the debate has happened, we’ll email you a video and transcript. Thanks, The Petitions team UK Government and Parliament Could the scheduled date be regarded as ironic given the ongoing parliamentary farce? Jab
I think its definitely ironic that they put the debate on whether to leave after the current legal date of leaving because "it will have the least chance of being overtaken by events"
I see the commons are now debating in an open / free vote (finally), which exit plan* they would prefer - I presume that equates to “best for the UK” but who knows!? If only the ffuckers had thought about these options before even offering the in/out vote to the public, so many moons ago. Christ, I despise the ignorance shown by our politicians. Edit: *non binding of course!
I'm not trying to "defend" austerity. I am questioning you and others in this thread trying to blame this gentrification of London and other high value areas on the Tory government and austerity. This has been happening since the Millennium. Councils across London, shipping tenants out, knocking down social housing, replacing with flash buildings and then reneging on their promises. Nothing to do with Tory cuts. It was being done when we had boom time in Blair's years. Luckily Lincoln is worth f*** all and therefore there ain't much profit to be made by such practices here. I'm not passing the blame on to Labour or trying to defend Tory. This is a long standing problem that has been continued under both parties for 2 decades. Under local councils that are Tory and Labour. As for the "local government not to blame" that is pure BS. Pass the buck, not me guvnor. If the Council wanted to make a fuss they would have. They always do quite often about the tiniest little thing. They don;t when it suits them. This is because it is a big developer and they are quite happy to ignore it.
Not at all. It's Chris Grayling's birthday (yes it is true!!!) and they all want an excuse not to go to his party.
Clearly you know nothing about local government, just as you appear to know very little about central government, or European government for that matter. Where do you think local councils get their funding from? Council tax is obviously a large part, but central government grants and business rates are also key. As government grants diminish because of the austerity policy, this hits deprived areas disproportionately harder, because they are less able to raise money by increasing business rates or council tax. Increasing council tax by more than the amount advised by central government leaves them liable to having to hold an approval referendum, which they have to pay for, and which low-income residents are unlikely to support. And an area which businesses and industry have deserted is less able to recoup much from business rates. I give you a recent paper from the Institute of Fiscal Studies: https://www.ifs.org.uk/research/197
You have gone on a rant based on something I never said and something you ignored. What has "government cuts" got to do with councils in high value areas shipping all the "poor folk" out for the past 2 decades? This is not a fresh thing. There are multitudes of articles on this dating back to the millennium. There was a Channel 4 or BBC 2 program on it a few years ago. They have been moving council tenants (or social tenants) off estates in high value areas for 20 years, renovating them and then only putting a few "social tenants" back in. As a constant linker to Guardian articles then maybe you've read them all but have chosen to ignore the ones pre 2010 OR ignore that a lot of the post 2010 ones were actually from processes that began before 2010 in your eagerness to pin every problem on the Tories. If you want to be as condescending to me then perhaps it might be a good idea to actually read what I typed and not go on a rave about something completely separate to what I was talking about. IF I take your little "lesson" in the obvious as fact then please tell me why they were doing this very same thing before austerity, in the boom times, when the "poor" had it so good?
I’d be grateful if you could find the last time I linked a Guardian article. And it wasn’t a rant, or a rave by the way. If I digressed from what you we’re talking about I apologise, but I was referring to Lambeth Council as quoted in the article quoted by St Badger which started this debate.
Which also has nothing to do with budget cuts. It's due to the developer planning the development as a union but then giving them to independent businesses, with the one controlling the private residents deciding to act in their residents best interests by only allowing its residents who pay the services charges for the play area access to the area. Council have complained, the housing association have complained, the designer of the block had complained but they are within their rights to do it. This is the kind of bollocks independence creates. Nobodies making any money or losing any out of it.
So it is nothing to do with Henley Homes donating to the Labour party as well as the mayor of London then. Good to know.
Today and yesterday have been very strange. Brexiteers that hate the deal are now saying they will vote for it. Bercow then decides to make it much harder for that deal to come back to the house and the big names in the EU start banging on about revoking once they fear "their" deal might now go through. If I were a conspiracy theorist I would say all these lot are/were gambling on bluffs. That the EU were banking on the deal stinking so much that we would remain by either a people's vote or just plain revocation. The ERG gambling that either Bercow would stop it being voted on OR that they have some legal advice that they could just do a Trump and tear up the deal afterwards. Very hard to work out who is actually saying what they think rather than bluffing. EU have certainly changed their tune today though which is very strange considering they should be over the moon if the deal goes through.
