imutual.co.uk

blythburgh wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17 2019 10:44am

... In many, if not most, seats a minority vote for the winner.

In the 2017 election, there were 174 seats (about a quarter of the total) where the winner did not have a majority of votes cast. Given that the Brexit party will take votes from Conservative and Labour and that the Liberal Democrats are resurgent, that proportion is likely to increase - hence the greater likelihood of a hung parliament.

pabenny wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17 2019 11:33am

blythburgh wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17 2019 10:44am

... In many, if not most, seats a minority vote for the winner.

In the 2017 election, there were 174 seats (about a quarter of the total) where the winner did not have a majority of votes cast. Given that the Brexit party will take votes from Conservative and Labour and that the Liberal Democrats are resurgent, that proportion is likely to increase - hence the greater likelihood of a hung parliament.

The Lib Dems and Brexit Party may take votes away from Conservative and Labour but will they take enough to win seats ? It depends which party loses the most votes to the others and whether this will affect the results that much in a "first past the post" system.

blythburgh wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17 2019 10:44am

If we do have a People's Vote and the majority is Leave then I will feel disappointed but will accept that the people have spoken and I must accept their decision.

Hasn't that already happened in 2016 ?

The Leave campaign made all sorts of claims and promises which have not been borne out in practice - such as the ease of negotiating a withdrawal agreement and of trade agreements with other countries.

The apocalyptic claims of the Remain side have been slower than expected but have come to pass - marked fall in the value of GBP, loss of inward investment, loss of jobs.

Since we're not getting what the Leavers promised and we are getting what the Remainers warned of, it's reasonable to ask whether the electorate still want what they voted for in 2016.

pabenny wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17 2019 1:41pm

The Leave campaign made all sorts of claims and promises which have not been borne out in practice - such as the ease of negotiating a withdrawal agreement and of trade agreements with other countries.

The apocalyptic claims of the Remain side have been slower than expected but have come to pass - marked fall in the value of GBP, loss of inward investment, loss of jobs.

Since we're not getting what the Leavers promised and we are getting what the Remainers warned of, it's reasonable to ask whether the electorate still want what they voted for in 2016.

The problem with that argument is that we haven't left yet ,so no one knows how leaving will affect the UK and probably we wont know for many years

True, we've not seen the effects of actually leaving - but we've seen plenty of negative effects resulting from the intention to leave. And in their desperation to 'win', the Leavers have completely abandoned any pretence that the UK will be better off outside the EU.

expressman33 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17 2019 1:57pm

pabenny wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17 2019 1:41pm

The Leave campaign made all sorts of claims and promises which have not been borne out in practice - such as the ease of negotiating a withdrawal agreement and of trade agreements with other countries.

The apocalyptic claims of the Remain side have been slower than expected but have come to pass - marked fall in the value of GBP, loss of inward investment, loss of jobs.

Since we're not getting what the Leavers promised and we are getting what the Remainers warned of, it's reasonable to ask whether the electorate still want what they voted for in 2016.

The problem with that argument is that we haven't left yet ,so no one knows how leaving will affect the UK and probably we wont know for many years

True, but every indication is negative. We don't know how far we will fall or how quickly, but the signs are that we will fall. The possibility that it will take many years (50, if Jacob Rees Mogg is to be believed) until we know is not reassuring. The talk now is of mitigation, not celebrating the sunlit uplands.

Maybe it's the project manager in me, but when I assess risks, the first approach is to avoid the risk, not mitigate it's impact.

Ironically, over the past three years, we seem to have done some of the investigation and due diligence that we should have done before triggering article 50. or indeed, before having the referendum in the first place. Given the wealth of information and scenario modelling now available, and the impasse that has now fatally crippled two governments, a second referendum remains the least bad way forward.

kevinchess1 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17 2019 7:02am

Yes I would
If the Tories campaign on a ‘Leave even without a deal ‘ and win the election
Would you except it with good grace?

I would accept with good grace.

I voted remain, this day in day out "B" hike is undermining our future prosperity. Let's get the "B" word done and dusted so we can instead of simply looking to the future actually get on with building a prosperous future.