Has The Spectator got much reach beyond its own 'bubble'?
I think the issue is that a large part of the Tory membership is in the same bubble (and you get weaker variants of the same arguments for the their voting coalition running in the Telegraph, Mail, Express etc).
I saw something about it yesterday, to the effect that the rebels would launch it if Sunak's effort failed to improve the party's prospects in the polls.
There is no doubt that the likes of Braverman would actively welcome Farage and his ilk into the Conservative party. This would probably drive the few remaining "One Nation" conservatives out. Indeed, this is what I anticipate will happen after the election.
Quite what happens then is not sure. If the Conservatives become a "hard right" party, that leaves a space for a "soft right" party. The Lib Dems could, in theory, move in that direction. I think it unlikely that a completely new party would be formed. I wouldn't be surprised if, after the election, Ed Davey made some cooing overtures to soft right conservatives, along the lines of "there are some things we already actually agree on." We shouldn't forget that there were plenty of conservatives who voted Remain and would prefer closer ties with the EU.
How ironic as the bastards put Cameron in power and the twat took us out of Europe.
There is no doubt that the likes of Braverman would actively welcome Farage and his ilk into the Conservative party. This would probably drive the few remaining "One Nation" conservatives out. Indeed, this is what I anticipate will happen after the election.
Quite what happens then is not sure. If the Conservatives become a "hard right" party, that leaves a space for a "soft right" party. The Lib Dems could, in theory, move in that direction. I think it unlikely that a completely new party would be formed. I wouldn't be surprised if, after the election, Ed Davey made some cooing overtures to soft right conservatives, along the lines of "there are some things we already actually agree on." We shouldn't forget that there were plenty of conservatives who voted Remain and would prefer closer ties with the EU.
How ironic as the bastards put Cameron in power and the twat took us out of Europe.
Well, my understanding is that he held the referendum under the assumption that Remain would win and he could then neutralize the anti-EUers as a political force. But, it didn't work out that way, and some would argue that once the results were announced, the Rubicon was crossed and there was nothing Cameron or anyone else could do to turn back.
(I don't really care to defend the thesis that the referendum results made leaving inevitable, just that "Cameron took us out of Europe" is arguably a somewhat misleading statement. Anyone else can have the last word here.)
Cameron pushed by the right of his party decided decided to go with the result. The question itself was supposed to produce and indicative result. Given the indicative nature of the vote and the closeness of the result we should have discussed further with the EU and then based on the results gone back to the people. Remember it was not until leave had won did we suddenly start going with a hard Brexit. Before that we were looking at a Norway style relationship. Let’s not get complacent this time or things could get worse.
@Hugal. Discussed what with the EU? The terms were already renegotiated 4 months before. Why would we start going with a hard Brexit before 'leave won'? Who's 'we' in the 'we were looking at a Norway style relationship'. Theresa May? Get complacent about what? You mean it could be worse?! Even under Labour.
My view (oft repeated here) is that a binding referendum would have required a clear decision on the form of Brexit being sought, endorsed by Parliament. And, for Parliament to endorse any form of Brexit would have required enough people to vote for pro-Leave parties that they'd have enough MPs to be in government (at least as a minority partner in a coalition). That's how British democracy is supposed to work.
Instead we got an indicative opinion poll that gave a slender minority of the electorate in favour of some form of Brexit, with what exactly that would be undefined because different groups of Leave campaigners were asking for different, mutually incompatible, versions of Brexit. That isn't a referendum, but would have been sufficient for Parliament to put aside time to debate the various options and reach a consensus on what sort of arrangement would be sought after a referendum to determine if that's what the electorate wanted. Whether or not the views of other parties in Europe would be sought, and whether they would comment if asked, during the process of examining options is a different issue - my expectation would be that, as happened during campaigning for the 2016 opinion poll, the EU institutions would say "we're not interfering in internal UK politics".
Negotiations with the EU would only start after Parliament had decided on what form of Brexit would be best, and the electorate had a proper referendum to choose between that and Remaining in the EU, assuming the electorate chose a defined form of Brexit to be sought.
My view (oft repeated here) is that a binding referendum would have required a clear decision on the form of Brexit being sought, endorsed by Parliament. And, for Parliament to endorse any form of Brexit would have required enough people to vote for pro-Leave parties that they'd have enough MPs to be in government (at least as a minority partner in a coalition). That's how British democracy is supposed to work.
Instead we got an indicative opinion poll that gave a slender minority of the electorate in favour of some form of Brexit, with what exactly that would be undefined because different groups of Leave campaigners were asking for different, mutually incompatible, versions of Brexit. That isn't a referendum, but would have been sufficient for Parliament to put aside time to debate the various options and reach a consensus on what sort of arrangement would be sought after a referendum to determine if that's what the electorate wanted. Whether or not the views of other parties in Europe would be sought, and whether they would comment if asked, during the process of examining options is a different issue - my expectation would be that, as happened during campaigning for the 2016 opinion poll, the EU institutions would say "we're not interfering in internal UK politics".
Negotiations with the EU would only start after Parliament had decided on what form of Brexit would be best, and the electorate had a proper referendum to choose between that and Remaining in the EU, assuming the electorate chose a defined form of Brexit to be sought.
My only build to that - though both Brexiters and those in favour of various other independences seem to go a bit Mandy Rice-Davies on it* is that subsequent to a deal there should be a second referendum on whether the populace is happy to go ahead on the terms as finally agreed, rather than be left with whatever dog's breakfast has emerged from the mandate to negotiate.
Ie, 'our white paper says this is what we want from the negotiations, give us a mandate to negotiate' then 'this is what we've actually achieved in the negotiations, give us a mandate to implement'
And of the people who didn't vote at all, there is no way of telling who ignored the referendum because they didn't care what happened and how many did so because they took Cameron at his word when he said it was an 'advisory' vote and wouldn't change anything.
Anyone who has ever negotiated with a toddler would have known better than to call a referendum on such a poorly defined question and then not bother to ask the electorate to ratify the deal that was actually offered.
My only build to that - though both Brexiters and those in favour of various other independences seem to go a bit Mandy Rice-Davies on it* is that subsequent to a deal there should be a second referendum on whether the populace is happy to go ahead on the terms as finally agreed, rather than be left with whatever dog's breakfast has emerged from the mandate to negotiate.
Ie, 'our white paper says this is what we want from the negotiations, give us a mandate to negotiate' then 'this is what we've actually achieved in the negotiations, give us a mandate to implement'
That was the labour policy under Corbyn - feedback on the doorstep was no one wanted to contemplate another vote.
My view (oft repeated here) is that a binding referendum would have required a clear decision on the form of Brexit being sought, endorsed by Parliament. And, for Parliament to endorse any form of Brexit would have required enough people to vote for pro-Leave parties that they'd have enough MPs to be in government (at least as a minority partner in a coalition). That's how British democracy is supposed to work.
Instead we got an indicative opinion poll that gave a slender minority of the electorate in favour of some form of Brexit, with what exactly that would be undefined because different groups of Leave campaigners were asking for different, mutually incompatible, versions of Brexit. That isn't a referendum, but would have been sufficient for Parliament to put aside time to debate the various options and reach a consensus on what sort of arrangement would be sought after a referendum to determine if that's what the electorate wanted. Whether or not the views of other parties in Europe would be sought, and whether they would comment if asked, during the process of examining options is a different issue - my expectation would be that, as happened during campaigning for the 2016 opinion poll, the EU institutions would say "we're not interfering in internal UK politics".
Negotiations with the EU would only start after Parliament had decided on what form of Brexit would be best, and the electorate had a proper referendum to choose between that and Remaining in the EU, assuming the electorate chose a defined form of Brexit to be sought.
My only build to that - though both Brexiters and those in favour of various other independences seem to go a bit Mandy Rice-Davies on it* is that subsequent to a deal there should be a second referendum on whether the populace is happy to go ahead on the terms as finally agreed, rather than be left with whatever dog's breakfast has emerged from the mandate to negotiate.
Except the correct point at which set out these terms was at the outset prior to running the referendum. Once it had been run the UK was going to leave, and the only means of amelioration was the manner of that departure. At that point, all attempts to prevent leaving ended up driving things in the opposite direction (almost deliberately so, if you look at the behaviour of some of those behind the "People's Vote" campaign).
My only build to that - though both Brexiters and those in favour of various other independences seem to go a bit Mandy Rice-Davies on it* is that subsequent to a deal there should be a second referendum on whether the populace is happy to go ahead on the terms as finally agreed, rather than be left with whatever dog's breakfast has emerged from the mandate to negotiate.
Ie, 'our white paper says this is what we want from the negotiations, give us a mandate to negotiate' then 'this is what we've actually achieved in the negotiations, give us a mandate to implement'
That was the labour policy under Corbyn - feedback on the doorstep was no one wanted to contemplate another vote.
People were heartily sick of hearing about Brexit by then.
I think the problem with the referendum wasn't the question or whether or not it was advisory (I dont remember that being even mentioned during the campaign) for me the problem was what constituted winning. I think it shoulkd have been either 51% of the electorate or a super majority of those who voted - either 66% or 75%. It was far to important an issue to allow to slip through on 36% of the electorate.
But bottom line is I think we actually elect people and pay them big money to do the research and make decisions. Otherwise, what is the point of them?
...the behaviour of some of those behind the "People's Vote" campaign
Such as...?
Exploding on the eve of the election being called, and then telling all their supporters to vote for the Lib Dems/TIG in a shift from "We want a referendum" to "We want to revoke the referendum".
Its worth remembering (or not for the sake of peace and harmony) that only 36% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The rest didn't vote to leave.
There are only two ways of interpreting the absent votes of those who don't cast one. This applies to all elections and all votes. Either regard them as 'don't care' or assume they would have voted in the same proportions as those who did. Whichever option one adopts, the end result and their effect on it is the same.
Its worth remembering (or not for the sake of peace and harmony) that only 36% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The rest didn't vote to leave.
There are only two ways of interpreting the absent votes of those who don't cast one. This applies to all elections and all votes. Either regard them as 'don't care' or assume they would have voted in the same proportions as those who did. Whichever option one adopts, the end result and their effect on it is the same.
This is not, however, the rule applied to strike ballots.
Its worth remembering (or not for the sake of peace and harmony) that only 36% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The rest didn't vote to leave.
There are only two ways of interpreting the absent votes of those who don't cast one. This applies to all elections and all votes. Either regard them as 'don't care' or assume they would have voted in the same proportions as those who did. Whichever option one adopts, the end result and their effect on it is the same.
This is not, however, the rule applied to strike ballots.
Nor, in functional systems, to votes for major constitution change.
The 'advisory' nature of the referendum was a massive trap. Legally it may well have been struck down if it had any actual force in its own right.
But as I've said lots of times, the referendum was not designed to sort out the complicated question of what relationship the UK actually wanted and needed with the EU, with a serious analysis of risks and benefits. No, it was designed to fix a rift in the Tory party.
I say this seriously, rather than maliciously but if Brexit ends up destroying the Conservative Party as an electoral force that would be a kind of justice.
This is not, however, the rule applied to strike ballots.
That's because those are the rules under which strike ballots are required to operate. A similar but less well known one applies to local authorities promoting or opposing parliamentary legislation. IMHO a similar rule or some other form of supermajority, should have been imposed in the case of the EU referendum, and probably all referenda. Unless there's a majority of all those entitled to vote, or a 66% or 75% majority or whatever of those voting, there should be a bias for the status quo, against change. But unfortunately it wasn't.
But that's a different question. @Alan Cresswell was talking about how one interprets the votes of those who didn't vote. I'm saying that can't be done, it's pointless to try to do so, and that one can't do much more than ignore their silence.
For an election there's no status quo, no 'no change' option.
Sorry, I don't recall mentioning those who didn't vote. I'd prefer if everyone voted, but the views of those who don't voter are unknown and I agree with you that there are two valid ways of considering them, neither of which impact the result of an election based solely on those who do vote (as opposed to votes where it's specified that a minimum percentage of those eligible to vote is needed).
This is not, however, the rule applied to strike ballots.
That's because those are the rules under which strike ballots are required to operate. A similar but less well known one applies to local authorities promoting or opposing parliamentary legislation. IMHO a similar rule or some other form of supermajority, should have been imposed in the case of the EU referendum, and probably all referenda. Unless there's a majority of all those entitled to vote, or a 66% or 75% majority or whatever of those voting, there should be a bias for the status quo, against change. But unfortunately it wasn't.
But that's a different question. @Alan Cresswell was talking about how one interprets the votes of those who didn't vote. I'm saying that can't be done, it's pointless to try to do so, and that one can't do much more than ignore their silence.
For an election there's no status quo, no 'no change' option.
Don't the rules for strike ballots (and similar supermajority rules for constitutional changes) impose an assumption about the views of those who don't vote?
This is not, however, the rule applied to strike ballots.
That's because those are the rules under which strike ballots are required to operate. A similar but less well known one applies to local authorities promoting or opposing parliamentary legislation. IMHO a similar rule or some other form of supermajority, should have been imposed in the case of the EU referendum, and probably all referenda. Unless there's a majority of all those entitled to vote, or a 66% or 75% majority or whatever of those voting, there should be a bias for the status quo, against change. But unfortunately it wasn't.
But that's a different question. @Alan Cresswell was talking about how one interprets the votes of those who didn't vote. I'm saying that can't be done, it's pointless to try to do so, and that one can't do much more than ignore their silence.
For an election there's no status quo, no 'no change' option.
Don't the rules for strike ballots (and similar supermajority rules for constitutional changes) impose an assumption about the views of those who don't vote?
Open question, in public political elections and referenda in the UK, when has a supermajority ever been needed? There is no precedent surely? There is no quorum.
This is not, however, the rule applied to strike ballots.
That's because those are the rules under which strike ballots are required to operate. A similar but less well known one applies to local authorities promoting or opposing parliamentary legislation. IMHO a similar rule or some other form of supermajority, should have been imposed in the case of the EU referendum, and probably all referenda. Unless there's a majority of all those entitled to vote, or a 66% or 75% majority or whatever of those voting, there should be a bias for the status quo, against change. But unfortunately it wasn't.
But that's a different question. @Alan Cresswell was talking about how one interprets the votes of those who didn't vote. I'm saying that can't be done, it's pointless to try to do so, and that one can't do much more than ignore their silence.
For an election there's no status quo, no 'no change' option.
Don't the rules for strike ballots (and similar supermajority rules for constitutional changes) impose an assumption about the views of those who don't vote?
Open question, in public political elections and referenda in the UK, when has a supermajority ever been needed? There is no precedent surely? There is no quorum.
Scottish and Welsh devolution 1979 - open question why, having got it 'righter' then, we seem to have forgotten how to run them properly since.
though before I get corrected - they weren't strictly supermajorities, but they did mandate a majority of a minimum turnout. So there definitely *was* a quorum.
The 1979 referendums had a requirement of a majority of votes cast plus a minimum of 40% of the electorate. So, in Scotland it got 52% of the votes cast in favour, but on a 65% turnout failed to meet the additional 40% of the electorate threshold.
The 1979 referendums had a requirement of a majority of votes cast plus a minimum of 40% of the electorate. So, in Scotland it got 52% of the votes cast in favour, but on a 65% turnout failed to meet the additional 40% of the electorate threshold.
Sorry, I don't recall mentioning those who didn't vote. I'd prefer if everyone voted, but the views of those who don't voter are unknown and I agree with you that there are two valid ways of considering them, neither of which impact the result of an election based solely on those who do vote (as opposed to votes where it's specified that a minimum percentage of those eligible to vote is needed).
Another instance to quote when advocating for a box on all ballot papers for None of the Above,
Here's my solution to the whole voters/electorate dilemma...
Both in-person voting and mail-in ballots are offered.
Voting Day is a national holiday.
Under these circumstances, it is assumed that anyone who wanted to vote did vote, and that those who stayed home simply did not care about the issue enough. Therefore, 50% plus 1 of active voters is the only threshold.
The 1979 referendums had a requirement of a majority of votes cast plus a minimum of 40% of the electorate. So, in Scotland it got 52% of the votes cast in favour, but on a 65% turnout failed to meet the additional 40% of the electorate threshold.
That.
Agreed, so why wasn't it? 5.5%, a £billion a week, off GDP, for what?
@Hugal. Discussed what with the EU? The terms were already renegotiated 4 months before. Why would we start going with a hard Brexit before 'leave won'? Who's 'we' in the 'we were looking at a Norway style relationship'. Theresa May? Get complacent about what? You mean it could be worse?! Even under Labour.
Leave leaders did not push a hard Brexit during the campaign. They talked about a Norway style Brexit mainly. After they won they immediately started pushing a hard Brexit as if that is what they had said all along. When they got power they made that hard Brexit happen.
Here's my solution to the whole voters/electorate dilemma...
Both in-person voting and mail-in ballots are offered.
Voting Day is a national holiday.
Under these circumstances, it is assumed that anyone who wanted to vote did vote, and that those who stayed home simply did not care about the issue enough. Therefore, 50% plus 1 of active voters is the only threshold.
Yes to 1 and 2. No to 3. Make voting compulsory, like Australia, and include a "None of the Above" box.
Here's my solution to the whole voters/electorate dilemma...
Both in-person voting and mail-in ballots are offered.
Voting Day is a national holiday.
Under these circumstances, it is assumed that anyone who wanted to vote did vote, and that those who stayed home simply did not care about the issue enough. Therefore, 50% plus 1 of active voters is the only threshold.
Though you still need to make provision for the significant proportion of the population who will still be working. If someone doesn't vote because they start their shift in the hospital too early to get to the polling station before work, and the bus is late getting them home does that mean they didn't care enough?
Here's my solution to the whole voters/electorate dilemma...
Both in-person voting and mail-in ballots are offered.
Voting Day is a national holiday.
Under these circumstances, it is assumed that anyone who wanted to vote did vote, and that those who stayed home simply did not care about the issue enough. Therefore, 50% plus 1 of active voters is the only threshold.
Though you still need to make provision for the significant proportion of the population who will still be working. If someone doesn't vote because they start their shift in the hospital too early to get to the polling station before work, and the bus is late getting them home does that mean they didn't care enough?
Early voting, and the already mentioned mail-in ballots.
Here's my solution to the whole voters/electorate dilemma...
Both in-person voting and mail-in ballots are offered.
Voting Day is a national holiday.
Under these circumstances, it is assumed that anyone who wanted to vote did vote, and that those who stayed home simply did not care about the issue enough. Therefore, 50% plus 1 of active voters is the only threshold.
Yes to 1 and 2. No to 3. Make voting compulsory, like Australia, and include a "None of the Above" box.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this, because I regard compulsory voting as undemocratic.
Here's my solution to the whole voters/electorate dilemma...
Both in-person voting and mail-in ballots are offered.
Voting Day is a national holiday.
Under these circumstances, it is assumed that anyone who wanted to vote did vote, and that those who stayed home simply did not care about the issue enough. Therefore, 50% plus 1 of active voters is the only threshold.
Though you still need to make provision for the significant proportion of the population who will still be working. If someone doesn't vote because they start their shift in the hospital too early to get to the polling station before work, and the bus is late getting them home does that mean they didn't care enough?
Not just those, but others who are unable to get to the polling station due to unforeseen circumstances. People get taken ill, or a family emergency can come up unexpectedly for instance.
Here's my solution to the whole voters/electorate dilemma...
Both in-person voting and mail-in ballots are offered.
Voting Day is a national holiday.
Under these circumstances, it is assumed that anyone who wanted to vote did vote, and that those who stayed home simply did not care about the issue enough. Therefore, 50% plus 1 of active voters is the only threshold.
Yes to 1 and 2. No to 3. Make voting compulsory, like Australia, and include a "None of the Above" box.
@Hugal. Discussed what with the EU? The terms were already renegotiated 4 months before. Why would we start going with a hard Brexit before 'leave won'? Who's 'we' in the 'we were looking at a Norway style relationship'. Theresa May? Get complacent about what? You mean it could be worse?! Even under Labour.
Leave leaders did not push a hard Brexit during the campaign. They talked about a Norway style Brexit mainly. After they won they immediately started pushing a hard Brexit as if that is what they had said all along. When they got power they made that hard Brexit happen.
Links? Who is 'They'? Here are Vote Leave's, i.e Johnson and Cummings, 15 lies.
Don't the rules for strike ballots (and similar supermajority rules for constitutional changes) impose an assumption about the views of those who don't vote?
You can make a philosophical case that not voting is a vote for inertia - for the status quo, or for not doing anything. Elections don't have a status quo - you are asked to pick between one of these individuals to represent you in parliament (or whatever). With regard to strike ballots, "just leave me alone and keep going to work" looks a bit like a status quo. For constitutional changes, "don't change anything" is clearly a status quo.
Don't the rules for strike ballots (and similar supermajority rules for constitutional changes) impose an assumption about the views of those who don't vote?
You can make a philosophical case that not voting is a vote for inertia - for the status quo, or for not doing anything. Elections don't have a status quo - you are asked to pick between one of these individuals to represent you in parliament (or whatever). With regard to strike ballots, "just leave me alone and keep going to work" looks a bit like a status quo. For constitutional changes, "don't change anything" is clearly a status quo.
Technically incumbency would be the status quo in an election, but I don't think anyone would accept an MP continuing to hold office just because turnout in their constituency was below 50%.
Don't the rules for strike ballots (and similar supermajority rules for constitutional changes) impose an assumption about the views of those who don't vote?
You can make a philosophical case that not voting is a vote for inertia - for the status quo, or for not doing anything. Elections don't have a status quo - you are asked to pick between one of these individuals to represent you in parliament (or whatever). With regard to strike ballots, "just leave me alone and keep going to work" looks a bit like a status quo. For constitutional changes, "don't change anything" is clearly a status quo.
Technically incumbency would be the status quo in an election, but I don't think anyone would accept an MP continuing to hold office just because turnout in their constituency was below 50%.
Although that might motivate them to vote… (I’m obviously not endorsing it but if those were the rules then people would know what to do….)
Comments
I think the issue is that a large part of the Tory membership is in the same bubble (and you get weaker variants of the same arguments for the their voting coalition running in the Telegraph, Mail, Express etc).
Ah, wrestling for control of the clown car while it's in motion.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/10/tory-right-plans-to-present-sunak-with-set-of-demands-if-manifesto-falls-flat
I can but delight in their deluded but determined attempts to descend even deeper into the depths of total dysfunction.
How ironic as the bastards put Cameron in power and the twat took us out of Europe.
Elsie Wayne and Jean Charest, the sole Canadian breeding pair of Federal Tories post 1993 weren't head-turners either.
Well, my understanding is that he held the referendum under the assumption that Remain would win and he could then neutralize the anti-EUers as a political force. But, it didn't work out that way, and some would argue that once the results were announced, the Rubicon was crossed and there was nothing Cameron or anyone else could do to turn back.
(I don't really care to defend the thesis that the referendum results made leaving inevitable, just that "Cameron took us out of Europe" is arguably a somewhat misleading statement. Anyone else can have the last word here.)
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
@Hugal. Discussed what with the EU? The terms were already renegotiated 4 months before. Why would we start going with a hard Brexit before 'leave won'? Who's 'we' in the 'we were looking at a Norway style relationship'. Theresa May? Get complacent about what? You mean it could be worse?! Even under Labour.
Instead we got an indicative opinion poll that gave a slender minority of the electorate in favour of some form of Brexit, with what exactly that would be undefined because different groups of Leave campaigners were asking for different, mutually incompatible, versions of Brexit. That isn't a referendum, but would have been sufficient for Parliament to put aside time to debate the various options and reach a consensus on what sort of arrangement would be sought after a referendum to determine if that's what the electorate wanted. Whether or not the views of other parties in Europe would be sought, and whether they would comment if asked, during the process of examining options is a different issue - my expectation would be that, as happened during campaigning for the 2016 opinion poll, the EU institutions would say "we're not interfering in internal UK politics".
Negotiations with the EU would only start after Parliament had decided on what form of Brexit would be best, and the electorate had a proper referendum to choose between that and Remaining in the EU, assuming the electorate chose a defined form of Brexit to be sought.
My only build to that - though both Brexiters and those in favour of various other independences seem to go a bit Mandy Rice-Davies on it* is that subsequent to a deal there should be a second referendum on whether the populace is happy to go ahead on the terms as finally agreed, rather than be left with whatever dog's breakfast has emerged from the mandate to negotiate.
Ie, 'our white paper says this is what we want from the negotiations, give us a mandate to negotiate' then 'this is what we've actually achieved in the negotiations, give us a mandate to implement'
*they would say that wouldn't they?
Anyone who has ever negotiated with a toddler would have known better than to call a referendum on such a poorly defined question and then not bother to ask the electorate to ratify the deal that was actually offered.
That was the labour policy under Corbyn - feedback on the doorstep was no one wanted to contemplate another vote.
Except the correct point at which set out these terms was at the outset prior to running the referendum. Once it had been run the UK was going to leave, and the only means of amelioration was the manner of that departure. At that point, all attempts to prevent leaving ended up driving things in the opposite direction (almost deliberately so, if you look at the behaviour of some of those behind the "People's Vote" campaign).
Such as...?
People were heartily sick of hearing about Brexit by then.
I think the problem with the referendum wasn't the question or whether or not it was advisory (I dont remember that being even mentioned during the campaign) for me the problem was what constituted winning. I think it shoulkd have been either 51% of the electorate or a super majority of those who voted - either 66% or 75%. It was far to important an issue to allow to slip through on 36% of the electorate.
But bottom line is I think we actually elect people and pay them big money to do the research and make decisions. Otherwise, what is the point of them?
Exploding on the eve of the election being called, and then telling all their supporters to vote for the Lib Dems/TIG in a shift from "We want a referendum" to "We want to revoke the referendum".
There's plenty more in the Brexit Witness Archive; but it's clear that Roland Rudd, Mandelson and the Lib Dems were viewing it in largely immediately instrumental terms, Tom Baldwin's interview is a good place to start https://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-witness-archive/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-witness-archive/tom-baldwin/
How different are the BC Liberals from the Federal Tories?
Before that question gets answered, I'll just point out that the BC Liberals don't go by that name anymore, and are now called BC United.
This is not, however, the rule applied to strike ballots.
Nor, in functional systems, to votes for major constitution change.
The 'advisory' nature of the referendum was a massive trap. Legally it may well have been struck down if it had any actual force in its own right.
But as I've said lots of times, the referendum was not designed to sort out the complicated question of what relationship the UK actually wanted and needed with the EU, with a serious analysis of risks and benefits. No, it was designed to fix a rift in the Tory party.
I say this seriously, rather than maliciously but if Brexit ends up destroying the Conservative Party as an electoral force that would be a kind of justice.
AFZ
But that's a different question. @Alan Cresswell was talking about how one interprets the votes of those who didn't vote. I'm saying that can't be done, it's pointless to try to do so, and that one can't do much more than ignore their silence.
For an election there's no status quo, no 'no change' option.
Don't the rules for strike ballots (and similar supermajority rules for constitutional changes) impose an assumption about the views of those who don't vote?
Open question, in public political elections and referenda in the UK, when has a supermajority ever been needed? There is no precedent surely? There is no quorum.
Scottish and Welsh devolution 1979 - open question why, having got it 'righter' then, we seem to have forgotten how to run them properly since.
That.
Another instance to quote when advocating for a box on all ballot papers for None of the Above,
Both in-person voting and mail-in ballots are offered.
Voting Day is a national holiday.
Under these circumstances, it is assumed that anyone who wanted to vote did vote, and that those who stayed home simply did not care about the issue enough. Therefore, 50% plus 1 of active voters is the only threshold.
Agreed, so why wasn't it? 5.5%, a £billion a week, off GDP, for what?
Leave leaders did not push a hard Brexit during the campaign. They talked about a Norway style Brexit mainly. After they won they immediately started pushing a hard Brexit as if that is what they had said all along. When they got power they made that hard Brexit happen.
Yes to 1 and 2. No to 3. Make voting compulsory, like Australia, and include a "None of the Above" box.
Early voting, and the already mentioned mail-in ballots.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this, because I regard compulsory voting as undemocratic.
Not just those, but others who are unable to get to the polling station due to unforeseen circumstances. People get taken ill, or a family emergency can come up unexpectedly for instance.
Yes - with sausages!
Links? Who is 'They'? Here are Vote Leave's, i.e Johnson and Cummings, 15 lies.
You can make a philosophical case that not voting is a vote for inertia - for the status quo, or for not doing anything. Elections don't have a status quo - you are asked to pick between one of these individuals to represent you in parliament (or whatever). With regard to strike ballots, "just leave me alone and keep going to work" looks a bit like a status quo. For constitutional changes, "don't change anything" is clearly a status quo.
Technically incumbency would be the status quo in an election, but I don't think anyone would accept an MP continuing to hold office just because turnout in their constituency was below 50%.
Although that might motivate them to vote… (I’m obviously not endorsing it but if those were the rules then people would know what to do….)