Blah Blah

In.

I think that's a fair analysis Louisa. Those campaigning for Brexit are on a completely different agenda to the public reasons for wanting to leave. Agree Loz - QT was awful tonight.

Completely disgree Louisa on your analysis of Labour party voters. Voting share was not affected in recent local elections by the issue (in fact it was up in many areas) and the London Mayor was the biggest mandate for the winner so far. It is up to us to decide - it's not about party politics - hence the straight vote. The result may well depend on what undecideds do on the day, but whichever way the result goes, I hope those on both sides will accept it with good grace.

:D I did indeed mean irrelevant to Wandle and SC (and irrelevant to the legal proceedings that will no doubt follow). It's a good question though in a wider context, especially when looking at what topics readers/posters seize upon. I personally don't think any forum is very representative of anything, a bit like comments sections under articles, or social media groups. And I would argue that the most useful aspect of this forum are things like the for sale section, or lost and found, or finding local resources, what's on etc. A kind of yellow pages for the internet, with the card previously in the local shop window thrown in :)

I think it's too easy to stereotype leavers. As with most things, the most shocking supporters of anything will make the first tier of consciouness. It's not helped though by the leave campaign focussing on immigration so much. It's clear what demographic they are going for there. There's a lot of hypocracy going on too (on both sides). Farage has a German wife for example.

Just to point something out. By far the biggest reason for pressures of social housing is right to buy. Many estates in London are almost half leasehold, and of those leaseholds, most are now in the hands of private landlords. The EU and immigration has had nothing to do with that. And government policy through the Housing and Planning Bill is going to make that situation far worse whether we leave or stay. This is the problem with many of the issues referenced, a lack of recognition of the role sucessive governments have played. It strikes me as completely ironic that some people are so angry at the EU but don't have that same anger for our own governments. And I also agree with the sentiment that anyone that thinks the likes of Gove et al will spend any money saved from EU membership on housing or public services is deluded.

And residents can instruct their own legal representation of course. Councillors can only 'advocate' for the residents. It's not council property and never has been, so their powers are limited. The people who are responsible for sorting out the mess are Wandle. They are the liable party and in turn they will enact liability with the developers. My honest opinion is that some posts here have been very unfair on councillors.

Ah uncle does it again, claiming that only those wanting a job in the EU are for staying - but wait a second. Just remind me which party has the most MEPs - yes that would be UKIP, the party that wants us to leave.

Sigh Spider - no I did not say that. If you read back my reply was to a comment asking if three councillers were lawyers. My reply was simply making the point as to why councilors need to be lawyers when LAs and HAs have their own legal experts in house. And it's also completely obvious from Renata's posts that those councillors are very involved in liaising with residents as too is the local MP. She has also pointed out that Wandle are starting their own legal action against those responsible. They don't have to report every 5 mins to this irrelevant forum.

Don't see how that is relevant either. Wandle and Southwark both have legal teams they can refer to when needed.

But it's exactly because of those fractious turns to the extremes that we need to keep the EU together - or would you rather everyone went their own way and we see real upheaval in Europe again because of the economic decline many countries would incur? The EU is not just about the bigger players, it's also about the opportunity and stability is gives to smaller economies. I believe the idea of a EU is still a good one, and think working towards reform is the right way to go. And I also really wish voters had an inbetween option on this too, i.e. of being part of the marketplace, but not full members. A lot of people for in want reform, and a lot of people for out, are focused on too narrow a definition of EU membership.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or, in other words, people's voting and party > manifestos will always change to ensure that the > government changes regularly. We won't be subject > to perpetual Tory rule if Scotland depart unless > something very weird happens and every other party > suddenly decides to become extremist. No, every party would have to become the same to have any chance of winning a majority. The only time Labour have ever won a majority of seats in England and Wales was at the height of Blair, and there a reason for that - the same reason I have being trying to get through to you, which you are clearly not understanding. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's not about being centrist though, it's about encompassing the centre ground in policy as well as the right or left. Maggie was a step to the right of course, but she also appealed to the centre ground. Blair too could only keep Labour elected by appealing to the centre ground. A party that stands solely on the left or right whilst ignoring the centre, struggles to get elected. There's plenty of electoral evidence for that.

My original point Loz is that it is parties that change to win the centre ground vote, not voters per se. That's where I disagree with you. And what has happened since 2008 is very different to what went before, because of the collapse of the neoliberal dream and the rise of extremems following the crash. Yes Seabag - the last MEP elections had just a 36% turnout if I remember correctly. It will be interesting to see if the undecideds turnout, or not.

'People are voting in increasing numbers for smaller parties.' But prior to 2010, that wasn't significantly the case, with the Libdems being the sole beneficiaries of swings away from Labour and the Tories. You are trying to argue that the shifts of the last six years somehow are part of a trend from the 1950's onwards. That just isn't the case. And under FPTP, the votes of smaller parties don't count for anything. It would also be naive to not link the shifts of the last six years to the crash of 2008. The rise of extremes on both the right and left always follow economic collapse - that is nothing new.

If you look at the corresponding fugiures for turnout for those years Loz you will also see a high point of turnout in 1950 that drops steadily and plummets in 2015. So all that's really happened is a drop in people voting (except for a spike at the high point of Blair). As we all know, it's younger generations that increasingly are not voting and it was only a matter of time before that made for a significant drop - especially given the way that neo-liberal economics has basically trashed their futures. That's what's going on. And instead of the main parties fighting for that vote, you have them working to hang onto the grey vote instead, whilst changing absolutely nothing to help young people, who are facing increased burdens of debt just to get a higher education or housing etc. Check out the first graph here for what I am pointing out on turnout. http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And I disagree on people's voting patterns. > History does not support that view. > > Of course people's voting patterns change - that's > why we have a government change every few > elections. People will always tire of a government > and want change. Considering also that we're in > the middle of the biggest shift towards smaller > parties in post-industrial history and the Labour > party being virtually wiped out in Scotland by a > newly-rampant SNP. I'd say history does indeed > support that idea. I don't call bouncing between two parties a major shift in anything. Historically the electorate hasn't really shifted at all. A comparatively small number of swing voters have always decided elections, until that is, recently - and only then because of the major shift away from Labour in Scotland. That's my point. The party that holds the centre ground (whether they also stand on the right or left)usually wins.

This is correct. UKIP is the reason Cameron offered a referendum and given the narrowness of the majority, he was probably right to do it. But you then have to ask what else would they agree to, just to secure votes. That for me is everything that is wrong with government (pretty much all over the Western World). They've sold the idea of neoliberal consumerist individualism and now can only win elections if they give the people what they think they want, whether that want is actually good for the future of the country or not. I have also argued all along that too many people don't know enough about the EU to make any kind of informed decision either way. So we have a decision that could adversely affect our future economy (again in either direction) being based on single issues that appeal to some gutteral response from a place of ignorance, and the politicians are happy to appeal to that, again on both sides. Half the problem of course is that there will be no perfection whether we stay or leave. Both outcomes have serious pros and cons - hence my earlier point that yes or no ignores the complexity of the issue. Why aren't we being asked if we can just be part of the common market like Norway and Switzerland for example?

Completely agree Michael.

I'd rather have a SNP Labour coalition than a Tory party that are making us all poorer and bashing the disabled at will. And I disagree on people's voting patterns. History does not support that view. The FPTP system would ensure the Tories stay in power for a very long time.

Animals do get cuts and punctures from snagging on fences or other things they navigate or climb. If an animal has been attacked, it's usually pretty obvious in my experience.

Dumping Scotland means we face a future of perpetual Tory rule. I think that should frighten people more than being in or out of the EU.

But there lies the problem Louisa. The type of people that govern us will not change if we leave. And Piri Patel gave a speech last week to business leaders in which she said brexit would allow them to do away with some employment protections to free up business. So the argument for Brexit by those who will govern through it is completely about pushing more power into the hands of business and away from ordinary people. And if you go out of the South-east, you don't see pressures on supply of housing etc, but you do see high unemployment. We often look at the south-east and think it's a mirror for the entire UK. It's not. That's worth remembering too.