Linas.P

Well, at least it isn't personal. I can confirm this is their standard practice for diagnostics. That it is why it sucks so much if you have issue with Lexus in UK, because there is absolutelly 0 people here who knows how to diagnose them and are willing to spend time dealing with electrical issues and codes. Not sure if it would be fair to pin this issue on the guy who replaced the o2 sensor and make it his issue, because to be fair - the only alternative here is to scrap the car. I been in the same boat few times - either you can find the solution yourself or it is end of the car, there are nobody you can take Lexus to for repairs. Have you tried checking wiring, any clues there?

Sounds about right, when I had issue they said 195/hour... and unlimited hours... no minimum thought. And then at the end you have 2 options - either you can pay whatever many hours they spent diagnosing maybe 1, maybe 10 or maybe 30... or you pay repairs, which basically will work out the same, because they will say you need new ABS module for £2,000. So basically... whatever you choose it is going to be £2000.

I would imagine is that is asked as a question then perhaps OP, can't connect the charger... or maybe car is left in Airport Long Stay. In which case disconnecting battery is best option, leaving battery to drain can (likely will) damage it. That is not without its own issues. In terms of resetting thing - windows will obviously need to be reset. But there are other things - gearbox memory will be reset, so car will need to re-learn the patterns, could be jerky at first, which may be good thing. Also if you have memory seats and keys assigned to memory seat position - this will need to be all set. I know it sounds like first world problem, but I hate when seats loses memory and after that it always feels like something is wrong with adjustment, I know it is palcebo, but it always irks me as I feel like it is not in the same position as it was before.

IS250 already has "tachman compatible" immobiliser and that is it... putting aftermarket immobiliser in IS250 would be real pain. No - I don't believe it was cracked... ever. Also that is not how relay attack work, it does not need any cracking, it simply boosts key signal and car thinks key is inside. Besides the key range to unlock is completely different thing from immobiliser, one is handled by key antenna on the outside, the other is by ID code box internally. Long story short - boosting key signal is simple case of playing around with radio signals. Raspberry pie - this comes into CAN BUS hack, but that does not work on IS250, only on ~2016+ models. Yes - 235/40 would explain why your difference even higher than normal. as that would work out even smaller than 225/45 on 17s. That said 255 and 245 are absolute overkill for IS250 and totally unnecessary. I would go square 225 all around for nice RWD balance. 225/235 for completely neutral balance. Going for a thicker sidewall may be good choice.

I think you have this mixed-up... kids who joy ride the cars have no chance of stealing Lexus... it is way too complicated and sophisticated. No brute force would start it and those are not the types that drive around with sophisticated computers and relay kits. The people who steal Lexus quite easily (IS250 is vulnerable for relay attacks) are not those kids who joyride the cars and 15 years old Lexus does not interest them at all. Being modified it is even worse for them. So my advise would be - do no cause issues for yourself for something that isn't a realistic risk. It is wrong car, wrong age and not all modified JDM are the same. When ex-mine IS250 was stolen we concluded it was probably scrapper who did it. Family member I gave it to was away for a month and was in like shared household and they asked him to move the car from the drive way, he moved it down the street a little bit and it was autumn, so car quickly go covered with leaves and probably looked abandoned, we reckon somebody went past with trailer, noticed what looked like abandoned car (he also took the battery out so that it doesn't die when he is away, so no alarm) and they simply it loaded-up and left. Now sure - starter kill switch would be easy to make and would not mess up electricity much as it is single cable that goes directly from battery positive. Just put in extra starter relay there, 12V switch and that is all it needs. Still - waste of time in my opinion. That is exactly what it should be showing. On standard 17" 245/45 it is exactly 10%, on standard 18" 255/40 it is maybe 7-8%, because the tyre circumference works out 2% higher, so that cancels out. That is why I was always happy to do 80MPH indicated past all the cameras etc. because I know it is at most like 73MPH. Obviously, it depends what sizes are the aftermarket wheels and tyres on your car, but ~5MPH sounds right.

Would say waste of time - not exactly "popular" car for thieves... although ex-mine got stolen at something like 218k miles (qas quite a surprise). Speed is +10% standard, revs and temps on other hand should be bang on. So your pins are lacking the clip? Temp solution - just put any wire and bend it. Because it can cause real disaster if they come out when driving. Obviously, get proper clip to fix it.

Yeah sorry, I looked at it and thought "is this going to be clear" - it has to be OFF to start and then you toggle into ACC>IG The point - don't short the pins and do not remove the short when car in any other mode but OFF. Else it won't work e.g. you can do everything right, but pull the short before witching IG>OFF and it will fail. So your start and finish the procedure with car being in OFF position. Also I would advise to either have proper pins, or short it with probes from the back side, because it is easy to damage OBD 2 socket and then it is real pain to get that fixed.

To reset the sensor you need to keep the pins shorted for 45 minutes (I think technically 30, but I just do it for 45, because I had several occasions where it did not work after like 35min). The steps are as follows... car has to be OFF Short the pins, turn it to OFF>ACC>IG... DO NOT START THE ENGINE Keep for 45 min and make sure battery does not go flat. Turn the IG>OFF, do not try to start the car... Remove the short... only then try to start the car. Diagram below: Also 4# and 12# is incorrect... it is diagnostics mode... and in that mode you can press brake pedal to erase the faults. To reset all ECUs (presumably also REMOVE calibration data) you need to use 4# and 13#.

mk3 interior built quality is definitely worse than mk2, both materials and how it is put together is step down. That said mk3 is functionally quite modern and mk2 is a bit dated... for example you get Bluetooth integration by default (only late mk2s had it and it is nowhere near as straightforward), also upgrading head unit to android one is much easier affair on mk3, much less compatibility issues and it looks life factory option, because there is already glass in console, you just put larger screen behind it. If you get F-Sport with digital dash, then honestly + android unit then honestly 2013 IS is as good as any 2024 car, it doesn't feel like 10 years old car inside.

No sure what you want here - do you want us just to provide you with justification to ditch IS250 and spend extra money on IS350? Are you looking for simple encouragement to upgrade... Sure go ahead, upgrade - IS350 is just much better car, with one of the best engines ever made and dream to drive, there are loads of reason to have IS350 if you budget allows it, but carbon build-up is just not one of those reasons. As other have said - in UK we JUS DON'T have this issue. I don't know what exactly, but carbon build-up is simply not something UK or EU cars suffers from. I don't know if that is the driving we do, much lower mileage on average, better quality oils or what it is... but you will never hear that carbon build-up is what ended IS250 anywhere in Europe. Generally, this is compound issue of poor maintenance and extended service intervals. If you service your car say every 6 months/6000miles (I would recommend that on any car), then you unlikely to have issues with carbon build-up. Catch can is also good solution, but you basically need to do it on the new car right away, or do carbon cleaning (like walnut blasting) and then install catch-can. In short - catch can will not remove the carbon that is already there (also it is not really carbon, building... it is more like a sludge of oil vapor, carbon and dirt), it only slows down the build-up. All in all, this is sort of minor issue in grand schemes of things in IS250 ownership.

It is kind of compound issue running car that is poorly serviced > causes oil burn > causes poor lubrication > causes blow by > blow by increases pressure in crankcase > PCV blows oil vapour back into the intake > carbon/dust/oil combines to create carbon deposits on valves > overall this causes excessive wear/oil burning/more blow-by... and this cycle continues. Why we don't have it in UK... I really just can't explain, our service intervals are worse and many people pay very little attention to maintenance of any car overall, but we just don't get the issue here. So - really all comes down to regular service and good quality oil. Catch can does help, because it breaks the cycle, but realistically cycle should be stopped by regular oil changes and using good quality oil. IS350 does not have this issue, because it has port injectors which helps to dissolve build-up on intake valves. Same as Colin - I can't comment on whenever IS350 is right choice here, because I assume it will be more expensive and depending on local market it may or may bit be good deal.

Hopefully better. The only advantage or manual IS250 has over automatic... is initial purchase price. After hat all other thing are positives - smoothness, power, reliability, it is just objectively better car. Sure - getting one in good condition could make or break the experience, because neglected examples can cause headaches, but assuming IS220d is in same overall condition as IS250 auto, then IS250 is just improvement in very possible way. So my hope would be that you will be much happier with IS250 and realise what you were missing all the time 🙂 Certainly there is other side of it - IS250 being NA is kind of anaemic below 3000 RPM, but it is really rewarding the more you push it, it really encourages spirited driving, it sounds goods, it is very responsive etc. Kind of surprising in a way as it is a bit of luxury barge, but it is quite an enthusiast car in a sense, then it actually likes being revved out. This will be quite different from turbo car which has the power band between ~1800RPM and maybe ~3600RPM and then nothing. In IS250 you can rev it all the way to like 6,000 (red line is 6,850, btu I reckon there isn't much in it after 6,000). Just curious - what is happening with your IS220d considering it is now blown and unlikely to be economical repair.

IS250 was always much more expensive than IS220d, if you can get one which is just £1000 more, then I think it is very good deal. Provided the car you looking at is in good shape.

Yeah... sadly that is my experience recently. Don't care as I have purchased car that had many advisories and failures in the past, so there is no "record" to ruin. But I remember being really really annoyed when my old IS250 was failed for made-up reason at 172k, despite never having any advisory (apart of covers fitted obscuring engine non-sense), so it really felt like getting criminal record on clean history. Talking about "unprofessional" - this year I got stupid advisory and also a failure I didn't even know about... And technically I got advisory in re-test which should not be possible, but I really didn't feel like going back and arguing. Basically, the guy tested the car, complained that there is "so much rust, but it will be alright" and how "cars can be deceiving, looks good from outside, but rotten" (side note - just been under the car to did anti-corrosion treatment and apart of some surface rust and bent lifting points, it really isn't that bad, I really expected much worse considering how much MOT centres are in my face about it). After the test, he started the car to move it outside and one headlight didn't turn on, came inside and asked me if I want bulb to be changed... and I said "no, it is xenon, I doubt you will have that bulb, but it is weird it stopped working just now... what a luck". Then I said "can you just turn it on and off". And that was it, both lights came back on (I suspect it may be ballast on the way out, because bulb isn't even going pink yet). And that was all the discussion about that, he didn't mention anything about fail and I tough, because it was after the test and he already tested headlights and passed it, maybe he just going to ignore it. So he printed the pass certificate, with like 8 stupid advisories... "wipers not cleaning effectively" (there was little remnants of dried on a bug on the corner of passenger side), loads of rust advisories, basically all the ones "rust, but not substantially weakened", tyres wearing thin "despite all tyres having ~4-5mm on 75% of the with"... and I was like, whatever - pass is pass. Then I comeback homes and for some reason checked MOT history and it says "failed"... then I realised he first failed MOT, stating the passenger headlight does not work, then right away did a "re-test" adding 1 mile to the mileage and added all advisories and passed it. Seems like it would have been fair to at least tell me that he will have to fail the car for headlight, even if it was already after the test and sort of say "don't worry, because now it works I just going to record it like you passed retest". He was probably really offended that I said he "won't have the right bulb"... although getting "garage special" xenon wasn't really my goal. I would rather had accepted the failure and came back another day with set of new decent quality bulbs for re-test. That said I don't even know if it is bulb as it has not happened since... and it was literally one off.

£715 is because it is Manual. Automatic is £415. You can also get very first Manual cars, registered before March 2006 and they are also £415. That said Automatic cars are much better (from reliability standpoint) and I generally think Automatic suits IS much better, manual in IS being kind of agricultural and really low light of the model. Seems almost like afterthought and not properly adjusted/engineered unit. Don't get me wrong - I love nice manual boxes, but one on IS250 is just not one of those.

If it is PS wiring - then yes relatively simple... although - good luck finding used wiring for that (thinking about it, I may have 1 set, but I can't vouch for it being any good). If it is not PS wiring, then it will be engine harness #2 and trust me - it will total the car out, it is absolutelly the worst thing you can imagine. I really hope it is not that. Perhaps knowing that damage likely occurred near battery compartment it would be possible to find and repair the wire, but it is still massive pain as you looking at the harness that has like 40 wires in it.

Yes - you can indeed calibrate it in techstream... I just find it weird disconnecting battery/replacing o2 sensor has caused it to somehow lose calibration. It will give you instructions etc. Car has to be on even ground no more than 1 degree tilt in any direction. That said, in my experience what causes 0 point calibration to fail is loss of communication to ECU and not actual calibration itself. And loss of comms usually happens when wiring is damaged.

Did he actually unplugged the PS module? The PS module is under the battery tray and screwed down to the body, I just can't see how the could have "accidentally" unplugged PS. Even when you want to unplug it really takes a proper fight with connectors. Now if he did unplug it for some reason, then yes I can see how he may have not fully pugged the connectors back in, because they are really really hard to unplug and plug back in. Otherwise I doubt it is PS connector, maybe he accidentally pulled the cable when fighting with O2 sensor (I know it is tight there even when battery is out, still better than other side thought).

No - that sounds perfectly fine to me. No need to do another test. Alternator works fine. "Toyota" battery I assume Panasonic? They usually have 8 years lifespan, so perhaps it is time to replace it, but again from what you are saying your battery seems to be fine. Mine when I started having issues with randomly heavy PS already was giving me trouble, like car struggling to start just after 3 days being parked etc. Again lead-acid batteries are sometimes funky, you can charge them they show 12.6V and they pass tests, but then they cause intermittent problems. In your case I can't tell, replacing battery that seems to which is fine would be waste. So perhaps you looking at intermittent problem with A/C compressor or compressor clutch, compressor clutch relay. As you can imagine diagnosing intermittent problems is the most difficult thing.

It may be the case that you have 2 issues... one related to A/C and one related to alternator, they could also be linked. But first thing first... you need to measure what your alternator is doing again. 13.6V in my opinion is 50/50% - like it is not good, but if the car still drives and battery charges, then it is fine, I would not be throwing it to the bin right away. Theoretical minimum with every single option turned on to the max is 12.8V, but realistically you want little bit extra. However if you have issues related to electrical side and you also confident alternator is only doing 13.6V, without anything but engine running, then maybe under load it drops below 12.8V (and 12.8V is a hard limit any thing below that runs on battery directly and if say your alternator fluctuates between 13V and 12.6V, then this may cause all sorts of issues, flickering etc. and it would also destroy battery quickly). So you need to confirm first what alternator is actually outputting. If it still does 13.6V when EVERYTHING is running, then I would say your issue is not an alternator, if however it drops below like 13.2V, then I would be replacing it. Even if it is not the issue you after, 13.2V is jut not good enough and such alternator is basically not charging you battery sufficiently. So to start with, check that battery is fully charged- anything above 12.6V is good (note - this is with everything off and ignition in "off position" doors closed etc., ideally you need to measure just the battery itself, but it is pain to disconnect it on Lexus, so let's say 12.5V), if below 12.6V then start the engine and run it for 10 minute maybe, should be plenty to charge the battery. Now - if after running the engine for 10 minutes battery still does not show more than 12.6V, then either battery is bad or alternator is bad. What battery do you have? I had loads of issues with halfrauds and their Yuasa batteries (well Yuasa is not their brand, they have even shaitier line themselves, but they are the ones that sell Yuasa in UK). Some people actually recommend them, but I had nothing but trouble with them, they fail in all sorts of unexpected ways... and I have two failed Yuasa batteries that after charging measures completely fine and would pass any test. But one would not start the engine even once, and other would be dead after 3 attempts. They also mess up everything else in the way... and some of your symptoms could also be just battery on it's way out. So that halfrauds tested it and said it was good - I would not put much weight into it. Assuming you pass previous step - start the engine and make sure everything is off, no headlights, no heated seats, no A/C, no radio... good alternator should be around 14V, again 14.2 is perfect, but if it is 13.9V still good. Then go and turn on things one by one and check if voltage is dropping - heated seats (in particular they draw a lot of current), headlights with high beam, music, A/C etc. check voltage again - if it drops below like 13.2V then you car is effectively running from the battery. Voltage should be dropping slightly, but on my car even with everything running to the max I am still easily getting like 13.7V. So, yeah - first thing you need to check is that your alternator is actually alternating... if it does, then we can move to next issue on the list, but if it doesn't then it will cause all sorts of issues, or if A/C makes it to not run right, then again you can isolate A/C as a problem. In terms of probability I would say alternator failing is more likely than A/C compressor failing, although in my experience A/C compressor failed, but alternator was good past 200k miles (but usually is other way around). Yes - steering being electric, can be affected by electrical issues. I never had bad alternator, but at one point I had bad battery (original Panasonic) and PS would go from light, to hard basically at random. So in that case it was battery fault. Now - would A/C cause symptom because of bad Alternator... hard to say. In theory I can see how that could happen, but I have never seen it my self. So basically... let's speculate your alternator is just barely generating enough pixies when engine is idling... say it makes 13.4V at 900RPM, when you turn A/C RPM drops to 800 (AC compressor is like 3 HP, start-up may require maybe even 5HP)... that 100RPM different may be enough to go from barely sufficient 13.4V to something like 12.6V and as for short period car switches to run from battery... you get heavy steering etc. Then when you driving maybe the car is at 1200RPM anyway and then you have no issue anymore. In theory that is possible.

There is logic behind that -A/C compressor is running off the same belt as alternator, so if A/C compressor is binding, then alternator is also not turning as it suppose to turn and thus not charging as it suppose to charge. By that logic - if A/C is turned-off, then we should see better than 13.6V on alternator.

Don't get to do what? Ask if your position is realistic or idealistic? Never said, nor suggested that some votes counts for less... in election. Referendum is just not the "vehicle" to decide in UK system. So whatever happens after referendum is not decision of the people, it is decision of the Parliament... it does not matter if that decision aligns with votes of not. Even calling for referendum on foreign policy is dereliction of duties in my opinion, because they asking somebody who is not equipped to make that decision, to make it for them, so that they will not look stupid when it backfires. In my mind there is no question about following EU referendum results - 100% should have been "ignored" (ignored in a sense it should not have triggered exit from EU, but perhaps respected in other forms of reform) and there is nothing undemocratic about it. Again - what do you call "real" democracy? We are in representative democracy where people even in theory do not make direct decisions. And I believe they don't make any decisions in practice. Long reasoning, but we can pretty much boil it down to corruption and to the point that in practice politicians can lie in election. Parliament ultimately in theory should work for people... yes, but you not answered my question. Also if you every willing to answer it... include this part - who the Lords work for? And Who the King works for? No they didn't - referendum is just opinion poll... not only that the margin was razor thin and no question serious ever should be decided on 52/48% margin. So the only takeaway from referendum was that nation is deeply divided on topic. That is all. There was no clear answer. And no - lies were not told on both sides. If they were please name me the lies on Remain side? I know I am now talking with hindsight, but everything they said about economy, which was branded "fearmongering" turned out to be true. Now again - tell me a single promise from leave side that was NOT lie. So no - lies were not told on both sides and it is not zero sum game. Even if they were told on both sides it would not be zero sum game. It would only be zero sum game if both sides were perfectly equally correct/incorrect, or if those lies would have perfectly same/opposite impact. But it wasn't. Again I can't even think of any "lie" that remain side told before election, unless something clearly marked as "perdition", but even those all turned out to be true, or at least direction was correct. Again - we do not live in direct democracy where democratic decisions could be made in such way. Such decisions are made by representation, in election and by elected parliament, not in single "yes/no" vote by people. Really I just cannot comprehend how rational person can say this "what their voters asked for" - how voters could ask for something they don't know what it was? And this isn't some sort of tricky statement. Voters when voting for brexshaite didn't know what it means - literally. Because they only found out what it means once the exit deal was negotiated. Also there is plenty of evidence to suggest that by the time deal was negotiated there was like 65% people against it, because it is became clear that it is not what they voted for. The first sentence I mostly agree with, but I would add that tories to begin with adopted politics of far right and that split the party. If they would have stayed centre right that would have never have happened. But they really wanted that xenophobes and racists ~10-15% of vote and extra 2 seats in parliament. They played populism, pandered to racism and ultimately lost. Second part I disagree with, there are no valid reasons that underpins racism and xenophoby, there is small number of voters who vote on the basis of those issues in any country. Again share of that vote isn't large, but it exist. So there is decision to be made - ignore potential ~15% of votes and stick to the ideals... and allow far-right party to form and get 2 whole seats in the parliament. Or try to capture those racists and risk splitting more centrist part of your party from more far right side of you party. As you say all votes have same value, so if 65% of people people don't find immigration to be an issue and 15% does, then who should be follow - 15% or 65%? The issue itself is more nuanced, and perhaps the topic for another post, but in short issue was never the immigration, nor the scale of it. The issues was that government failed to integrate immigrants properly and that lead into competition between locals and immigrants for essential services. So the fault was on the government, not on the immigrants.

So is everything else - making false promises to get elected and then no following trough, lying when in government, misleading the public on meaning and results of changes you are doing etc. UK is representative democracy, not direct democracy - referendum is a tool of direct democracy, but under system in UK government is sovereign and therefore does not need to implement the results of referendum. Now sure... what does it means in practice? They will be voted out in next election. And that is how changes are achieved in British democracy - in elections, but not in referendums. Again - the whole point of referendum was a dirty ploy to distance themselves from decision, which they knew stinks from a far. The gave choice to the people who were not only poorly equipped to make it, but also actively mislead and deceived... Do you truly believe this is the case? Do you truly believe you have a say, we have a say, or would you rather agree that neither party gives a flying money about what electorate wants? I agree this is what it should be, government should only represent people, nothing else. But this is really idealistic belief, I do not personally agree that this is how it works in UK (and brexshaite by the way was not the will of the people). Especially under tories it was abundantly clear that they acted like fffing kings and felt no remorse openly stealing and lying...and brexshaite actually was one example of that. Tell me one thing - was there a single brexshaite promise that was kept? Okey - so I think we are getting confused with terminology here. Incompetent is somebody who set's out to do something, who has all tools and all possibilities to do it, but ultimately fails, for no other reason but their incompetence. That is incompetent. Example of incompetent - tories promised to reduce immigration, they created so called "hostile environment", which hurt a lot of hardworking people and just destroyed the trust of those who are already here and are working hard to make this country a better place to live, but ultimately immigration has increased under their rule. They had all the tools, they controlled everything, they could have sent every single non-European immigrant home as soon as they arrived... and they failed. Well... that is incompetent. The response to covid was incompetent, the breaxshaite negotiations were incompetent, they said there will be enquiry in "grenfell fire and accountable people will face consequences", but they were incompetent at that, "eat out to help out" policy was incompetent, the "track an trace" system was incompetent (well that was actually beyond incompetent and criminal)... PPE contracts ... well okey - that was also criminal. The "christmas parties" during lockdown... damn... that was also criminal based on the rules they have created themselves. In short - competence is setting out the goals and achieving them, no matter if those goals were good, bad, moral, immoral or whatever else. Your argument is - chancellor is "evil" person for taking away subsidy from pensioners. I disagree with you about that, but even if I agreed that would only make her bad person, but not incompetent. What would make her incompetent would be to announce she will cut WFA, but then next year it turns out they paid more WFA then before she anounced it. That would be incompetent. But if she just says she will cut WFA and does it, then there is nothing incompetent about it. When ever it is good or bad decision this will obviously depend on your perspective, but I just can't see how is that incompetent. And how you can say she is incompetent based on single decision about policy.

How large? ~12% at most? and to prevent UKIP getting like 2 seats in parliament he gambled the union? That is justification? Also "electorate unhappy" - you mean because of government lying about issues for generations? They were unhappy because political establishment here did not want to admit their failure and misled voters saying it was always EU's fault? In face of non-binding opinion poll which would cost immeasurable damage? Yes - obviously they should have just ignored it! Again this is not opinion - referendums in UK are non-binding unless specifically made binding by parliament. Did politicians mislead people telling them it is binding? Yes they did, but political lies didn't make it any more binding. "Little peasants" have a right to have a view, known as referendum and that referendum is NON-BINDING. It is advisory, government is informed, but the people view and then they should make decision themselves i.e. they voice is heard, but it does mean government has to implement it. That is a political cost. Same cost as not admitting to any failure and deflecting on somebody else. And again even brexshaite referendum was great example of government not owning up to their decision - "we don't want to be blamed when all this shaite hits the fan, as such let's put it to vote of ordinary people, who don't understand shaite, and who literally elects us to make these decisions for them for this reason specifically ... and then if it all goes horribly wrong we can blame people for making that decision". It is not my view on democracy that is "interesting", UK barely counts as democratic and I am just outlining facts. Why am I saying this? Because in UK Parliament is SOVEREING, meaning that it is only them and them alone who can make the decision. Meaning ALL referendums are merely advisory, this is in UK unwritten "constitution" basically, same way as petitions works etc. So if parliament want to leave the EU, they may leave, if they want to stay they may stay. What people said in referendum has legally no meaning. In this case it was particularly problematic, because vote was so close... would it have been 85/15% then we can argue by being informed by such overwhelming vote parliament decided to leave, most important part of this "parliament decided to leave", it is not people who decides to leave it is parliament that makes that decision. But when vote was basically 50/50% this really was just the case of government at the time wanting to leave and that is all on them. Good example on of that - once UK reached the agreement with EU everyone knew that if referendum would be re-run on the actual negotiated deal, something like 65% of people would vote against leaving, because what was promised before vote was totally different from what was in the end agreed. Yet they never called for another referendum and "with mountain of knowledge" that majority of people are against the deal they negotiated... still left EU. Why - because only they decide, there is only illusion of choice. I may be elitist, but it does not make me wrong. Somebody being confused by misinformation and lies does not make them right i.e. they may have made a decision from their heart and honestly believing it is best for them and best for the country, but making honest mistake doesn't make it any less of mistake. Can you give examples of that incompetence? Because I generally cannot see any of her actions as incompetent. I may disagree with them, or don't like them, but they were competent as far as I can see.

No - it is not. Let's just be crystal clear here, it was a political gamble because Mr. Cameroooon, who wanted to silence far-right racist fringes of his party and to stay in power (just small note here - despite all his mistakes I actually liked him, I think he was semi-decent PM... compared to what came after him). He did not have to call referendum... also referendum was ADVISORY (no opinion, this is fact, legally it was non-binding), so he didn't have to follow-up on it and exit EU or resign, it was 100% in his power to say "we hear you guys, we will do better, but we staying in EU". Would have the party revolted? Maybe... maybe not. In short - didn't need to call referendum, didn't need to respect the outcome of it - it was all by choice. I can trace it back to all politicians being bulshaiters and blaming anyone but themselves for their mistakes. Not a single issue we had in UK was fault of EU, EU was simply convenient scapegoat for way too long, until it became inconvenient when Mr. Fartage started the party basically saying "if EU is so bad then why don't we leave it". The thing here is the "if" part, politicians blamed EU for everything, but realistically it was all fault of them, the people sitting in Westminster... so we left the union under false pretext of it being issue of all the problems there is, but as it turned out it was false pretext we still have all the same problems except we are now also out of EU. Now whenever down to your heart you believe being in EU is good or bad thing is different topic altogether, I am just saying that brexshaite was caused by lies and deflection. You can name literally any issue and I can objectively prove it was issue with our government and not EU. Where do you want to start? Immigration... let's go - UK had every lever to limit immigration, from outside of EU 100%, but even within EU. Germany did so despite being a member, Switzerland does it despite being part of EEA... there are power that local governments can use to limit migration. Did our government used those powers? No they didn't... so how is this EU fault. Also let's just look past what they said and to what they actually did - after we left EU migration has doubled and then tripled, and majority was not even from EU... so this means they always wanted as many immigrants in as possible and it was never EU fault. Whenever immigration is good or bad that is separate topic, but tories specifically wanted immigrants in and they let them in... EU has nothing to do with it... and we could have limited migration if that was genuine desire even whilst still being in EU. Either way - it was not a genuine problem boiling over... sure people voted out as a "protest vote" against tories austerity, but they would have voted that way in literally any referendum. According to me (I literally work in wealth planning) I disagree. Here I would add - the topic is complicated, some wealth escaping is inevitable and even welcome, also we could stop the bleeding if we wanted to, but also if we just going to tax the rich on current, completely broken tax system... then sure there is more holes than in Titanic at the moment and they simply going to escape. Sure... there is wider issue of multi-jurisdiction tax planning and if UK just decides on it's own to crack down on it, then it will be difficult. We need at very least EU and US support if we want to achieve anything. That said UK is the worst out of 3 - we have all sorts of tax heavens under out control which we can very easily close if we wanted to. If you think that issue is "rich people finding ways around it", it is more like - there are demarcated superhighways of tax evasion and tories government even bent backwards to open more of individual runs. Not as single loophole is mistake, all of them were specifically designed to please small groups of uber-riche people, sometimes even literally single person. Sure - there is barrier of entrance, most of those loopholes are not made for poor bstards with £1-10 million, you need at least 10 to start... and even then there are some where one really needs to be a billionaire to exploit. And here you are kind of right - tories for sure not only knew it, they literally made it. Labour as far as I know have no part in this, however they are likely too weak and incompetent to pick a fight like this. @Malc1 - sorry, I know it my feel like I just wanted to silence you on the Reeves topic, but would be happy to hear your argumentation as to why she or her "hubby" does not deserve the salary they get. I am just tired of unjustified attack on them. but perhaps I am just looking at it from my high castle and I am missing some important point. So if you can justify why you think that is "incredulous" then I would be happy to hear it and discuss, otherwise it does seem like a little bit of politically motivated attack without substance.