Congestion charge referendum - can you vote?

[nickchild]

Of course as an individual you can and obviously are going to make up your own mind! I mentioned the organisational things simply to point out that it was your individual view, not the collective view of all cyclists.

But you talk like someone who thinks that your own views are gospel and that everyone else should agree and put them into effect whatever else they might think. That's where the hard work begins, and that's what the Congestion Charge tries to address - a realisable best compromise between a whole range of people and views and concerns, all the way to the survival of the planet for our grandchildren who've yet to be born into it.

[wangi]

But you talk like someone who thinks that your own views are gospel and that everyone else should agree and put them into effect whatever else they might think.

Eh right...

Try reading your post(s) too - Should I just accept your "gospel", or what the council says? This is a discussion, I've simply put across my observations and views. Nothing more. Everyone is free to ignore or debate them as they see fit.

best compromise between a whole range of people and views and concerns, all the way to the survival of the planet for our grandchildren who've yet to be born into it

Well somebody has got to decide if this is about the environment or $$$ - a lot of people far more educated in the matter than me are putting forward that the "congestion charge" cannot be about both.

And this does tend towards the "take what you're given" ... "otherwise it's your fault the sea rises" sort of argument. People should be free to make a choice without this pressure, and if the scheme on the table isn't up to scratch then it should be regected. Why settle for a poor solution?

I'm all for a congestion charge, but it should be as simple as possible (1 cordon, no exceptions) and priced such that it will actively discourage car use. I think this is quite a widespread view too - if "no" is the result then I think it's because folk are against the implementation, not the idea.

[Gemini]

NC quote>I reckon an "admission charge" is indeed quite a good way of describing it! Admission charges work very well to manage other valued commodities like theatres and cinemas and clubs! >end quote

Roads are not commodities, they are necessities! however, is it not fair to say, that the majority of law abiding car owners are paying hefty Road Tax fees every year, where does this revenue go? 60 Million + people living in the UK - what is the percentage of people/families who are car owners - or even two car owners or more within the same family?

Another fact which I don't think has been touched on yet ? : people who don't use/own cars will also be penalized by this proposal, Service Industries/Utility Companies, notwithstanding Food delivery vehicles,Postal Services - the list is endless, but they will invariably pass the costs on to Joe Public.

I am totally in favour of reducing congestion on Edinburgh's Streets/Roads - thereby reducing dangerous Pollutants/Accidents, what I am not in favour of this ill conceived plan.

I must agree with Wangi's posting too.

It was was mentioned on TV last night that Buses and Taxi's were the main polluters. Another point raised : 2 cordons will encourge more cars within the cordons, Lawrence has mentioned that this system will affect approx 80 Streets in Edinburgh - perhaps some of these Streets are in our community? Perhaps Lawrence can give us some clarity on this point?

[Pal of Porty]

What an excellent post Wangi. Your comments on buses encompass all the difficulties I have experienced. Have the 'powers that be' ever tried to get to the Western Hospital from Portobello by bus for 8:00am appointments three times per week!

And as for cycling....

<ol><li>Just what is the point of all these non-mandatory cycle lanes? Thank you very much!

<li>Advance start lanes, useless because cars 70% of the time are sitting in them so when you advance to occupy you end up putting yourself into an even more dangerous position. Likewise never enforced.

<li>And now the council is wanting to stop painting them red, making them even less visible to motorists and even more likely to be blocked by cars and making cycling more dangerous.

It just beggars belief. All of these decision makers should be made to cycle around Edinburgh for a week to experience first hand the danger and lack of resource put into this enviomentally friendly and healthy option.

I recently recieved a Council Questionaire from School asking why I did not encourage my children to cycle to school. Among many issues, safety was paramount and I find it totally ironic that the route I would allow them to cycle to school on is illegal. I refer of course to the Prom.

Just for the record, I will be voting YES.

[Pal of Porty]

But you talk like someone who thinks that your own views are gospel and that everyone else should agree and put them into effect whatever else they might think.

Debate is healthy but I would like to register my absolute disagreement with the above comment you made regarding the post made by Wangi. You are out of line.

[Mimpty]

Wangi is more than capable of looking after himself, I know, but I agree with PoP - he is only expressing an opinion, it didn't sound like the gospel according to St. Wangi to me either.

There are some point he makes that I agree with - I use a monthly bus pass which I recently found out could be updated at Porto News. If day-savers could be bought more readily ie newsagents that would be a good thing.
I have often wondered what Princes Street etc would be like with more buses on it. I just think about Edinburgh in the summer with bus after bus after bus lined up waiting to get to a stop. Increased buses would be good but it seems like they create their own jam.

I still feel undecided on this issue. I know there is a congestion problem but I can't help feeling a bit affronted at the thought of having to pay to enter parts of my own city.

[Bob Jefferson]

Interesting and pertinent point from Lawrence:

As you ponder your vote in the coming days, please remember that the biggest issue affecting Portobello at the moment is that of the proposed superstore development. This is to all intents and purposes predicated on the belief that the vast majority of its customers would drive there. Take away the car park and there would be no superstore proposal. Car-based lifestyles are difficult to change once ingrained as the facilities which once supported local communities are increasingly diminished by large retail and leisure complexes. We need to break this downward spiral which has already damaged too many previously thriving local shopping areas in the streets of our city. A "Yes" vote will make a start.

[Bob Jefferson]

Exploding the Myths around Edinburgh's transport referendum addresses a lot of the issues and concerns raised in previous posts. Well worth reading, even if you think you have made your mind up.

[nickchild]

I may have put my last point clumsily in a rush. In fact debate is of a much higher quality around a big single issue referendum than it can be around a more general election. I didn't have time to answer all the points, and I won't because I don't think they're the main way to solve the problem of congestion - see below for why, not just that I think my own view is gospel.

I cycle in Edinburgh too. There are lots of extra ideas that can be tried - and some are on the list that goes with the congestion charge proposal alongside the funds the congestion charge is also designed to raise. Of course it's about putting together both £££ and solutions for congestion!

I might think that some of the bits of the congestion charge plans are not brilliant either. But I was trying to say that there have been many teams of people with expertise dedicating many more hours than any of us have, to research and discuss and plan and put those plans through national scrutiny, and I know will have had many more competing factions and considerations to consider in the process than we can know, will surely have some greater claim to have got a balance right than any one or few individuals on a message board coming up with a few bright new ideas two days before the vote begins. Do you think they haven't looked at all these bright ideas?!

Imagine the huge organisation that has laboured to come up with this proposal reading a list of ideas on a message board and saying, "Oh yeah, goodness, we didn't think of that; let's scrap all our work so far and give that a go! Oh, and look there's a completely different set of bright ideas by a car addict, we'd better give them a go too."

Does the message writer here suddenly have the political and governmental determination to do the necessary and mobilise their own huge organisation? I'm trying to say, get real. There's a proposal on the table. Vote No if you must, but don't expect these other plans to suddenly be agreed on if the best laid plans have gone aglay. So we'll be stuck with no coherent strong enough solution.

Plenty of people have small gripes about the proposal, but no one but no one has come up with anything like a worked out alternative to tackle congestion and all that goes with it - economic, convenience, health, pollution etc.

Lists of more minor changes are known from experience here and elsewhere to not to be strong enough, or fundable enough, to counteract the amount of car use that causes increasing congestion - except when the roads have to be closed to achieve legally required lower pollution levels if we vote No.

With proportional representation coming for Council elections next time. plus a No vote now, and there will not be any measures like this put before us again in years. This proposal has the core of carrot and stick that will work for all - including those who do need or cannot do without their car for going to work. Yes means everyone, including cars, will have a better deal in future. Lists of minor good ideas now are great, as long as they aren't seen as valid reasons to vote No next week.

[wangi]

Sure Nick, I do get what you are saying. But if these observations/points/ideas are so obvious why aren't they considered and documented? Why are we given the poor solution that is? Why are the recommendations of other "experts" ignored? I think it is naive to suggest that experts always get things right - I'm sure the Holyrood fiasco is still pretty fresh in all our minds...

I actual wonder why the council is even bothering to ask!

And as I said before, I'm not voting.

[nickchild]

I don't have all the answers to every question there is, nor the time to answer them. I don't believe experts get it right always. In fact Holyrood is an interesting example - increasing numbers of people are seeing it as a fabulous building that indeed should have had better controls over the managing of it. But the point's been made that proprer control would certainly have produced a mundane building! Then some people would complain about that.

I do think debate of what is on the table is appropriate. But there are core issues to discuss and there are ones that we know aren't going to cut the mustard. Even if your individual suggestions were the very dab, it isn't a real possibility now to put them into the ballot papers that are in the post now. I'm suggesting those ideas are not strong enough reasons to vote no. But obviously some will think they are. They and we will live with the consequences and we'll see who rues the day most in due course. Everywhere else in the world that has gone for congestion charging has had reluctance followed by general welcome of the results. I trust that the experts studied what worked elsewhere. If you don't believe that, what can I say but vote No!

There will be a summary with your ballot paper next week giving what the experts reckon will follow from a Yes vote for the preferred option, and what will follow from a No vote.

Some will say it's too detailed and obscure. Some will say there's not enough detail. Some will trust it. Some will say it's all lies. The hardest job is for the people in the middle who've to listen to ALL that, in a way we don't, and find the best way forward.

I live beside someone who I can assure you is dedicated, trustworthy, caring, open, works til she drops on all the big and little issues that come her way, and is an acknowledged experienced authority on Sustainable Development and on Council Finance. So I am also this clear about the congestion charge proposal because I'd believe and trust her overall judgement of what has gone into this massively significant proposal for Edinburgh, even if I don't have all the details in my own head. I guess that's where I place my ultimate trust, why I hope that my view is trusted here, and why I don't rate so highly the last minute good ideas on a message board by people I don't know yet and who usually go by nick names! Sorry!

[wangi]

and why I don't rate so highly the last minute good ideas on a message board by people I don't know yet and who usually go by nick names! Sorry!

And that's the second time you've given me a personal jibe. Why even bother?

I am putting forward a point of view that is different to yours. I do not think it ultimately right, nor do I expect answers. However I think it is fair to say that on a message board people normally discuss.

I'd have though it was clear from my posts that I am in favour of congestion charging, but do not think this scheme is ideal. We have been given an opertunity to vote and make our opinion know - so why waste and vote yes simply because those giving us the vote "obviously know better"?

I used the Parliament as an example because it is often discussed, personally (as I've said on this forum a good few times before) I think it is a great building and something to be proud of. That doesn't make the process right. I could have also used the war in Iraq (which I'm also for, but can see big reasons against how it's been done).

And re nicknames - my real name is just one click away... to anyone.

[Maria]

Nick Child wrote:

I live beside someone who I can assure you is dedicated, trustworthy, caring, open, works til she drops on all the big and little issues that come her way, and is an acknowledged experienced authority on Sustainable Development and on Council Finance. So I am also this clear about the congestion charge proposal because I'd believe and trust her overall judgement of what has gone into this massively significant proposal for Edinburgh, even if I don't have all the details in my own head. I guess that's where I place my ultimate trust, why I hope that my view is trusted here, and why I don't rate so highly the last minute good ideas on a message board by people I don't know yet and who usually go by nick names! Sorry!

Obviously this is an issue that brings out a strong emotional response in you Nick, but I suspect personalising the debate will do little to further your cause.
Using a nickname is a common convention on boards such as ours, though Lee makes no attempt to conceal his identity (try looking at some of our other threads, such as our 'Photos' one) . He is one of our top ten posters and has earned the respect of other members. A little courtesy goes a long way....

[nickchild]

And that's the second time you've given me a personal jibe. Why even bother? . . I am putting forward a point of view that is different to yours. I do not think it ultimately right, nor do I expect answers. However I think it is fair to say that on a message board people normally discuss.

I'm sorry you feel it's a jibe. It wasn't meant that way. With frustratingly limited time to answer all points (which I would hope normally to do in any discussion), to find out real names etc, I was just trying to respond to what I could and explain where my trust goes and why.

I agree with the rest of what you say on the Charge and on parliament.

[Maria]

Nick Child wrote;

With frustratingly limited time to answer all points

Time may be running out in the lead up to the referendum but there are many folk out there who haven't fully made up their minds yet on how they will vote (myself, for example!) so persevere.
Incidentally Nick, Portobello Online discussed congestion charging back in April 2004, along with a Poll on the issue. Our (albeit rather limited) poll showed a much closer result than yesterday's "Evening News" one

[nickchild]

Thanks Marya. This is so fraught and exciting because it's a totally new kind of vote for everyone in Edinburgh - a postal one, a single practical issue, an X against a proposal not a candidate, with campaign collaboration across parties and others, and (I gather) with the ballot papers there will be that fairly big summary of the consequences of voting Yes (preferred option) or No (base option). It may actually look a rather too bland choice actually - voting No won't look too bad in neutral facts and figures!

So in some ways the heated debates are warming people up, hopefully, to take seriously the info they get with their ballot papers, and what they vote from the comfort of their armchairs over a couple of weeks if they want.

My over-riding passionate concern for what I think is far and away the most important issue in decades for Edinburgh, means that just now I see everything in terms of whether someone is arguing for a Yes or No vote. Hence my response to suggested ideas, wrongly thinking they were an argument to vote No. Apologies again. Good to get that clear though, in case others mistook them as recommendation to vote No.

[seashell]

This is a topic which concerns a huge amount of people - and yet those who live outside the cordons are being excluded from voting.
I use LRT buses every day and have a yearly season ticket. Yet, should I drive, I would be charged. Nor can I vote in the referendum.
Can Nick Childs explain why a car from outwith the city boundaries should be subject to congestion charging to travel to, say Liberton, while a carjourney from Leith to Liberton (avoiding the central cordon) would be free of charge? Both would use cars - taking up road space, cauing congestion and emitting pollutants. Exactly what is the difference? Except that one would be chargeable and the other would not...
I'm all for public transport - but when will we see real improvements that encourage people to leave their cars at home? Unless congestion charging is preceeded by a noticeable improvement in public transport, it is unlikely to have any effect other than disenfranchising the less-well off in society, while those who can afford to pay will continue driving their cars with alacrity.
A true congestion charge would target all users, not just those who live outside an arbitary boundary. The problem is car users in general, not just those who live outwith certain post codes.

[Bob Jefferson]

Here's a link back to our previous discussion on this subject, which I think bears re-reading:

Congestion Charging - 2003 discussion

[Brian McCrow]

I'll be voting NO.

While I want to reduce congestion in the City and gt people onto public transport, I believe that this proposal is far too technology lead. I think we should increase the cost of parking in the City Centre to discourage commuter parking while not discouraging short term shopper parking. This could be done now using the existing infrastructure without a large investment in technology.

At the same time there should be more Park & Rides, improved public transport, for instance larger and more frequent trains from Fife and investment by the Scottish Executive into bringing down the train journey time between Edinburgh and Glasgow to below 30 minutes.

There should also be investment in developing the Edinburgh bypass as it's rapidly becoming a car park in during rush hours and congestion charging will make this worse not better.

[nickchild]

Ian McWhirter in today's Sunday Herald says voting Yes to congestion charging is the obvious "no-brainer" choice. He wonders though, in relation to polls showing people voting No, what happens when the citizens don't want to be citizens, and want to have no brains. And when even politicians put interparty fighting before the benefits to the city in improved convenience, increased business, cheaper car journeys (working people are paying more now which is why business is so keen on Yes), less illness, less accidents, healthier habits, and reduced greenhouse gases.

Sure the info with tomorrow's ballot papers is legalistic - the Council is legally required to not speak plainly. Yet the same legal system that prevents the Council from speaking plainly about the Council's statutory obligations and the wider responsibilities too, also requires that Councils carry responsibilities for mandatory reduction of pollution and many other responsibilities too - about promoting amenity, good transport for all (including cars), good business, health, safety, and lower greenhouse gases. Join your thinking up by turning the pages of your newspaper to reports of how much more urgent climate change is now.

Only congestion charging will work by making individual drivers think. No other worked out options have been presented. No political party is going to make congestion charging part of a manifesto in future if we vote No, so this is our one chance, however imperfect some details might be.

Congestion charging is a key part to achieve all of these wider aims! Yet you're not allowed to be reminded of these in your referendum information! The law has tied itself and us into knots. It is an ass - in matters of the common good it has no brains!

So please remember these big collective local and global issues when you get your ballot papers this week, cos you won't read about them there.

And of course vote Yes even if you don't have a brain! I don't like this insult to Edinburgh that Ian McWhirter makes. Please can we avoid the insult sticking for years and years of evidence that he was right. His double edged ending is "Edinburgh deserves everything it gets".

[nickchild]

Ian McWhirter in today's Sunday Herald says voting Yes to congestion charging is the obvious "no-brainer" choice. He wonders though, in relation to polls showing people voting No, what happens when the citizens don't want to be citizens, and want to have no brains. And when even politicians put interparty fighting before the benefits to the city in improved convenience, increased business, cheaper car journeys (working people are paying more now which is why business is so keen on Yes), less illness, less accidents, healthier habits, and reduced greenhouse gases.

Sure the info with tomorrow's ballot papers is legalistic - the Council is legally required to not speak plainly. Yet the same legal system that prevents the Council from speaking plainly about the Council's statutory obligations and the wider responsibilities too, also requires that Councils carry responsibilities for mandatory reduction of pollution and many other responsibilities too - about promoting amenity, good transport for all (including cars), good business, health, safety, and lower greenhouse gases. Join your thinking up by turning the pages of your newspaper to reports of how much more urgent climate change is now.

Only congestion charging will work by making individual drivers think. No other worked out options have been presented. No political party is going to make congestion charging part of a manifesto in future if we vote No, so this is our one chance, however imperfect some details might be.

Congestion charging is a key part to achieve all of these wider aims! Yet you're not allowed to be reminded of these in your referendum information! The law has tied itself and us into knots. It is an ass - in matters of the common good it has no brains!

So please remember these big collective local and global issues when you get your ballot papers this week, cos you won't read about them there. All smaller questions about particular individual predicaments and suggestions, however valid they might be, have been considered, answered, scrutinised and debated. The papers are in the post. The big picture awaits our vote. Think of our children and grandchildren, not just about our limited individual predicaments.

With that in mind, I cannot see how anyone can vote other than Yes even if you don't have a brain! I don't like this insult to Edinburghers that Ian McWhirter makes. Please can we avoid the insult sticking for years and years of evidence that he was right. His double edged ending is "Edinburgh deserves everything it gets".
     

[nickchild]

A true congestion charge would target all users, not just those who live outside an arbitary boundary. The problem is car users in general, not just those who live outwith certain post codes.

I agree. This is one of the bits that was put in for the wrong reasons.

There will be lots more buses in place just before congestion charging begins. Money will be going back to outlying areas for them to use for transport - it's legally tied to that. Hopefully everyone who cares, as you do, Seashell, will be able to get good enough public transport whatever their journey, and not need to pay. There's no measure which is going to be meticulously fair to everyone. This one will do the broad job of reducing congestion and pollution etc

[Brian McCrow]

Nick

I like to think that I have a brain and understand the complexities of technology.

I will still be voting NO despite or even because of your vitriol.

[Bob Jefferson]

Brian, I think if you re-read Nick's post carefully you will see that Ian McWhirter is the person responsible for the 'no brains' insult and that Nick is offended by it as you are.

I don't like this insult to Edinburgh that Ian McWhirter makes.

Here is the article in question:

Who will pay for knee-jerk reaction to congestion charge vote?

[Bob Jefferson]

And having now read McWhirter's piece, and the paraphrased excerpt in context, I find myself in complete agreement with him.

[Gemini]

Road Pricing

A similar feasibility study has already been undertaken establishing how a scheme of charging motorists for the use of roads may lead to cutting congestion and ultimately reducing fuel emissions from the transport sector. The results of the study have shown that such a scheme can only contribute significantly to reducing fuel emissions if it were very carefully constructed and the impact it would have remains unclear.

Taken from Citizen Space

[mr magnolia]

Well we've got our papers and I have yet to decide...

let me trawl my memory for the 'facts' that have stuck in my head:

congestion charging will produce a 13% reduction in traffic. Whoopdewhoo. Getting drivers to go to work by public transport one day a week would produce a 20% rush hour reduction. Getting kids to school by a 'not car' method would be another huge reduction. Anyway these are predictions made by the guys and girls who always predict traffic levels, and they always get them wrong. (They got Londons wrong the opposite way and now they don'y have the income they were expecting)

£2 per day? I agree with Wangi - its a ridiculous fee; Ken L had the guts to make his charge measurable at £5. Central Edinburgh parking costs £1.60 per hour and the spaces are full. £2 per day was specifically chosen because it would NOT be a measurable deterrent (well thats the way I remember reading the reporters summary anyway)

Oh, but of course they are now going to REDUCE city centre parking charges in the morning so they DO NOT discourage people from coming in to the shops. Hmm.

And in London they have a hefty charge coupled with exemption for residents, so as to encourage/enable city centre living / high density housing.

And CEC are going to widen the residents and pay-space areas in any event, which will surely have an effect on its own? If they really mean what they say then make residents spaces 24hr spaces, not just 0830 - 1830, when at least half the residents have driven away somewhere else!

And STOP trying to frighten me with closing off roads to traffic to keep the fumes down - if you have to do it then DO IT. You do it at Hogmanay and you didn't consult me, and you do it all the time for long-term road works and its just a thing that happens. Grow up.

I really love trams too, but please - do you have to parachute in a French guy to tell us all that trams are cool? (Evening News last week) I KNOW THAT! - every decent city has a tram network and its a good thing generally. But in a de-regulated, unsubsidised, post-Thatcherite competitive manner? Hmm, I dunno about that one...

I really want to vote yes for this but I really want to vote yes for a scheme that will work. And I have yet to be convinced by this one. And if we get this one we certainly won't get another one.

Right

I'm off to sit on a fence for a day or two.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Finance chief 'breaks rules' in road tolls yes mailshot

[ifstar]

From that article posted by Bob
Hundreds confused by ballot

THE ballot paper for the referendum on congestion charging has come under fire from voters who say it is too confusing.

Hundreds of callers rang the council’s dedicated helpline on the first day of the postal vote.

Problems ranged from the security precautions on the form, to the difficulties placing it inside the envelopes provided to post it back.

By 4.30pm on the day that more than 300,000 ballot papers started arriving in city homes, the council’s helpline had received more than 450 calls.

-------------
I think thats the real problem - if people are struggling to grasp the concept that one envelope with your voting slip goes inside another envelope with you security paper, then why are these people even getting to vote. Surely people that silly should be automatically banned from all voting

[Porty]

I voted but I believe that having a vote on such a critical issue is a poor mechanism for policy formation. We have elected the council, if they decided to do ahead with tolls without a vote then so be it. If we don't like it then we can vote them out next time. The issues at stake are complex, i don't fully understand them, therefore I am voting in some ignorance. A vote will produce a populist result. Popularity is not a sound basis for shaping a city's futire. Why take the risk that the ill informed masses will form plocy?

(I voted yes because something needs to change and "something" is going to take a lot of cash. If it is viewed as an "admission" charge then big deal. it sure costs EDC rate payers enough to live and work here.)

[Gemini]

Was quite shocked at this EN Item!

Finance chief 'breaks rules' in road tolls yes mailshot

[Bob Jefferson]

I voted but I believe that having a vote on such a critical issue is a poor mechanism for policy formation. We have elected the council, if they decided to do ahead with tolls without a vote then so be it. If we don't like it then we can vote them out next time. The issues at stake are complex, i don't fully understand them, therefore I am voting in some ignorance. A vote will produce a populist result. Popularity is not a sound basis for shaping a city's futire. Why take the risk that the ill informed masses will form plocy?

Porty, I take my hat off to you. I think it takes a brave person to admit that this is a very complex issue and that we should trust the people we have democratically elected to make this decision on our behalf, with all the expertise they have at their disposal. Some issues are too important to be left to a referendum. We aren't voting someone out on Big Brother here, and remember that a majority of the population for decades voted in favour of capital punishment. God knows what kind of society we would live in if all decisons were left to the Great British Public.

Democracy works to a degree and then you need a benign dictatorship to step in and do the right thing.

[CatzVP]

And Catz - whadda you know about bus travel?? I don't remember you queuing up at MBH waiting on the 26 back to Porty. Didn't you have your car parked in the carpark?

Ha, well done Ali. You outed the Car driving scum. Lets see what he's got to say about that?

Yes I did, but I also Carpooled, which is something I believe in.

[mr magnolia]

Oh I've added my yes to this vote.

It really irks me that this is now a muddled proposal, and it irks me that they are having a referendum (somebody else pointed this out too). I'm sure it was in the air at election time and at that time there was to be no referendum.

And BTW Nick Child, the fact that many clever people have given this their time doesn't make me feel very secure about it at all - it is very very difficult to ensure that professional's time and advice is clear, valid and untainted by the politics of the situation (hence the Scottish Parliament location and hence it's cost)

So plaudits to CEC for trying and brickbats for bowing out, but I'll give it my vote 'cos something has to change and there won't be another opportunity.

( the dance before last is now in sight and if you dont act now she'll go home with someone else, you fool, and you'll have to sit and stare and watch life pass by while you clutch your slowly warming pint...)

(oops that just popped out. I must be in a time warp)

(lets do it again then)

[Porty]

Porty, I take my hat off to you. I think it takes a brave person to admit that this is a very complex issue and that we should trust the people we have democratically elected to make this decision on our behalf, with all the expertise they have at their disposal. Some issues are too important to be left to a referendum.

Thanks Bob we obviously share the same view on this aspect of the debate. However, perhaps we ought to refrain from any temptation to be smug. After all the people we democractically elected to make decisions on our behalf, are presumably the very same people who decided to have a referendum!!!