OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

Figure of speech, Parky...and anyway...a Parliamentary ‘seat or two’ has always seemed a bit beyond nasty ‘voice of the people’ Nigel hasn’t it?

[MadAmster]

I can think of no elections in a democratic country where votes not cast are added to those received by any of those on the ballot paper. Right and proper IMO. That is why I frequently quote that 67% didn't vote remain when I see people posting the 63% didn't vote leave claim.

Both statements are true but, in UK politics, votes not cast, just as with blank or spoiled ballot papers, simply do not count. Never have and never will.

I hope nobody takes this personally as it is not intended to be so. Merely an affirmation of how UK voting works.

[Manofpride]

I can think of no elections in a democratic country where votes not cast are added to those received by any of those on the ballot paper. Right and proper IMO. That is why I frequently quote that 67% didn't vote remain when I see people posting the 63% didn't vote leave claim.

Both statements are true but, in UK politics, votes not cast, just as with blank or spoiled ballot papers, simply do not count. Never have and never will.

I hope nobody takes this personally as it is not intended to be so. Merely an affirmation of how UK voting works.

I can't see remainer's agreeing to that MA, even though what you say is right!

[ramAnag]

I can think of no elections in a democratic country where votes not cast are added to those received by any of those on the ballot paper. Right and proper IMO. That is why I frequently quote that 67% didn't vote remain when I see people posting the 63% didn't vote leave claim.

Both statements are true but, in UK politics, votes not cast, just as with blank or spoiled ballot papers, simply do not count. Never have and never will.

I hope nobody takes this personally as it is not intended to be so. Merely an affirmation of how UK voting works.

You’re absolutely right ‘Amster in every respect, but - and we are going round in circles yet again - let’s also not forget that you can’t compare our usual elections with a binary choice referendum, i.e. when there are only two choices for a ‘side’ to say they represent a ‘majority’ or the ‘will of the people’ they surely have to have a vote equivalent to more than 50% of the electorate.

Additionally, if such a referendum is meant to set policy in stone and not be merely ‘advisory’ then we must be totally clear about that beforehand and be voting on what is true, not on a tissue of lies, and not at a time (late June) when many of the electorate are taking advantage of out of season (pre school holiday rates) holidays and many of the student body are effectively disenfranchised.

In short...I don’t like referenda, because I don’t believe the vast majority of people are equipped to make such complex decisions. Having said that, perhaps the only way out of the current impasse is a second referendum with more attention to the facts rather than the lies and exaggerations...but guess which side doesn’t want that.

[Geoff Parkstone]

RamAnag says:

You’re absolutely right ‘Amster in every respect, but - and we are going round in circles yet again - let’s also not forget that you can’t compare our usual elections with a binary choice referendum, i.e. when there are only two choices for a ‘side’ to say they represent a ‘majority’ or the ‘will of the people’ they surely have to have a vote equivalent to more than 50% of the electorate.

Actually why cant you compare? With the exception of a few constituency that go to LibDems, virtually all constituency general elections are in fact pretty binary, Con v lab, and in many of those cases are in fact unitary - a pig with a blue rosette would win my constituency every time. Its even getting that way in Scotland where Labour has currently been wiped out by SNP and Northern Ireland where politics are more religious based. I'd guess there's only a handful of places where more than two people have a legitimate chance of ever winning a seat

Additionally, if such a referendum is meant to set policy in stone and not be merely ‘advisory’ then we must be totally clear about that beforehand and be voting on what is true, not on a tissue of lies, and not at a time (late June) when many of the electorate are taking advantage of out of season (pre school holiday rates) holidays and many of the student body are effectively disenfranchised.


My impression was that pre referendum there was no perception that the referendum WAS advisory, its only after the result was known that the losers threw this stone into the puddle of clarity. I'm also unsure why a second referendum would not be corrupted by a different pack of lies and as for students being disenfranchised, how do you make that out? is it because the poor dears were busy with exams? How long does it take to vote, and why do normal working people not have the same time limitations due to being in work all day? Is it because they didn't register in their temporary residential location? If so, who's fault is that? Talk about clutching at straws.

In short...I don’t like referenda, because I don’t believe the vast majority of people are equipped to make such complex decisions. Having said that, perhaps the only way out of the current impasse is a second referendum with more attention to the facts rather than the lies and exaggerations...but guess which side doesn’t want that.

I don't like referenda either for the same reason, but having another merely compounds the sin as, for example, if remain themselves get a minority majority at a second one, that result would be equally inconclusive and in fact create more problems in decision making. I don't see how it could be a way out of any impasse - but I must say that I don't see a way out of it other than "no deal" or "no leave", both of which will create more division

[ramAnag]

RamAnag says:

You’re absolutely right ‘Amster in every respect, but - and we are going round in circles yet again - let’s also not forget that you can’t compare our usual elections with a binary choice referendum, i.e. when there are only two choices for a ‘side’ to say they represent a ‘majority’ or the ‘will of the people’ they surely have to have a vote equivalent to more than 50% of the electorate.

Actually why cant you compare? With the exception of a few constituency that go to LibDems, virtually all constituency general elections are in fact pretty binary, Con v lab, and in many of those cases are in fact unitary - a pig with a blue rosette would win my constituency every time. Its even getting that way in Scotland where Labour has currently been wiped out by SNP and Northern Ireland where politics are more religious based. I'd guess there's only a handful of places where more than two people have a legitimate chance of ever winning a seat

Additionally, if such a referendum is meant to set policy in stone and not be merely ‘advisory’ then we must be totally clear about that beforehand and be voting on what is true, not on a tissue of lies, and not at a time (late June) when many of the electorate are taking advantage of out of season (pre school holiday rates) holidays and many of the student body are effectively disenfranchised.


My impression was that pre referendum there was no perception that the referendum WAS advisory, its only after the result was known that the losers threw this stone into the puddle of clarity. I'm also unsure why a second referendum would not be corrupted by a different pack of lies and as for students being disenfranchised, how do you make that out? is it because the poor dears were busy with exams? How long does it take to vote, and why do normal working people not have the same time limitations due to being in work all day? Is it because they didn't register in their temporary residential location? If so, who's fault is that? Talk about clutching at straws.

In short...I don’t like referenda, because I don’t believe the vast majority of people are equipped to make such complex decisions. Having said that, perhaps the only way out of the current impasse is a second referendum with more attention to the facts rather than the lies and exaggerations...but guess which side doesn’t want that.

I don't like referenda either for the same reason, but having another merely compounds the sin as, for example, if remain themselves get a minority majority at a second one, that result would be equally inconclusive and in fact create more problems in decision making. I don't see how it could be a way out of any impasse - but I must say that I don't see a way out of it other than "no deal" or "no leave", both of which will create more division

You can’t compare because there are invariably at least five candidates - and often more - for every Parliamentary seat in the UK. Yes I accept your ‘pig in a blue rosette’ in Surrey or donkey with a red rosette in Oldham argument, but as long as there are so many candidates/choices you are seldom, if ever, going to have a Government which truly reflects the ‘voice of the people’. A referendum is meant to identify the ‘will of the people’...it hasn’t.

Just not true. Legally, unless stated otherwise - and it never has been - referenda are advisory. How many didn’t make suitable arrangements to vote because a) there was a belief that the result was a foregone b) they didn’t believe the outcome was mandatory?

Nothing to do with exams, Parky. By the end of June many students have finished their academic years and have moved back home. For a variety of reasons, as I’m sure you’ll remember, the exact time for leaving their university/college address and returning home or elsewhere can vary. The student body is significant and in such a serious referendum account should have been taken of this situation.
The voting system is notoriously inflexible. Having organised a postal vote facility for ourselves, because of uncertainty about our whereabouts, I read the small print and realised that my wife and I could actually use a postal vote, in the recent local council elections, in the conventional way...you wouldn’t believe the chaos and phone calls that generated turning what should have been a two minute process into a ten minute one...how many students are going to go to that trouble when asked for proof of residency?

I accept your final point. Can only say that I for one will stfu and get on with it as soon as we have genuinely established what the ‘will of the people’ is. I don’t believe we have at the moment and I’m happy to hear your better suggestion to resolve this seemingly unanswerable situation.

[Geoff Parkstone]

If a student cannot spend 10 minutes of his or her life sorting out how/where to vote when the pressure on their time is not huge (no exams to do, at worst a summer job or job hunting) then I consider that they gave up their vote of their own accord. Doubtless there was some manyana out there, some confidence that remain would win without a personal vote being missed, but you cannot call another referendum because some idle sod couldn't sort his or her voter registration out.

Your argument is as specious as the one that old people cannot vote in the local elections as is too confusing when you have to vote for maybe 3 people and do not have to vote the same colour always (although many people do).

If voting is important to someone, then they will find a way through the system, and don't forget the referendum timing was chosen by a predominantly remain cabinet at the time, so it was hardly a "Farage Fix".

[ramAnag]

Disagree, but so be it and I’ve never mentioned a ‘Farage fix’. I’m no conspiracy theorist, besides most established politicians probably loath the man as much as me...albeit for entirely different reasons.

No ‘fix’...just yet more incompetence.

[ramAnag]

With nothing happening on the transfer/managerial front, summer and the cricket World Cup seemingly rained off and Brexit playing second fiddle to the Tories holding the country hostage to their own fortune yet again, let’s have a lighthearted, or otherwise, look at the runners and riders. (Sorry Angry. ).

So...in no particular order.

Rory Stewart...hampered by looking like a slightly deranged ****ager but actually speaks some sense. 15/1
Mark Harper...who? 100/1
Michael Gove...hampered by looking totally deranged, especially when out jogging, but spoke better than most at the initial hustings. 5/1
Matt Hancock...the quiet man. Speaks more sense than many but ambition not matched by ability. 25/1
Jeremy Hunt...despite apparently not knowing what nationality his wife is he is vastly experienced, looks relatively normal and can be sensible as far as Brexit is concerned. 5/1
Sajid Javed...always keeps his head down even as Home Secretary and no one knows what, if anything, he stands for, but unlikely to have much support amongst grass roots Tories i.e. the electorate in this case. 25/1
Boris Johnson...given the nature of the aforementioned electorate he must be favourite but always likely to put his foot in starting this morning when his ‘handlers’ are due to let him speak. Likely to be a disastrous PM imo. 4/1 until he screws up or gets caught out.
Andrea Leadsom...hideous, power hungry, opportunist candidate who no one had heard of prior to her ill thought out and bitchy comments about Theresa May last time around. 20/1
Esther McVey...equally hideous, power hungry, opportunist candidate but without the political ‘intelligence’...attractive to misguided blue collar Tories only. Fortunately not many of them will be voting this time around. 100/1
Dominic Raab...Oxbridge bright...common sense dim. Total failure as Brexit Secretary haunted by his inability to recognise the importance of Dover to our trading nation. 90/1

Verdict...is this really the best this country can offer?

[MadAmster]

I did like Victoria Derbyshire's apt "faux pas" on Jeremy.

Is there even one of them you would trust to have your back in any kind of argument, be that intellectual or physical?

IMO, No!!