"Modernism", "Elitism", and "The Working Classes"

[Beef Oven!]

That is very often the case. The arguments don't go to the root of why people hold their convictions. But changing their minds is not the same as making up their minds. A campaign that is muddled, technical arguments that are contradictory, issues that don't seem particularly relevant leave people uncertain: arguments which leave voters clear in their minds what they are voting for make it easier to decide. In this waυ a campaign can swing a campaign from one decision to another - which matters when both sides have approximately equal support among the ἐντρενψηεδ᾽ωοτερσ. Hit a wrong key there: that was Greek for 'entrenched voters'.

I do believe that both sides were clear on what they were voting on in the 2016 referendum, at the time and there wasn't much of a hoo-ha except for the bus, poster and project fear. The whole business of a confused ill-informed people* that couldn't make up its mind on good information and argument was post-hoc, in my opinion and recollection.


*what's the collective noun for people entitled to vote in a referendum - it obviously can't be electorate?

[Bryn]

How about constituency? Or perhaps total constituency.

[Beef Oven!]

How about constituency? Or perhaps total constituency.

Better than my effort but no cigar in sight!

[eighthobstruction]

....ah

[visualnickmos]

*what's the collective noun for people entitled to vote in a referendum - it obviously can't be electorate?

Manipulerate.

[Beef Oven!]

Manipulerate.

[Richard Barrett]

I can't read it all tonight.

Now you know how it feels when people come across some of your own more extensive utterances!

[Lat-Literal]

Now you know how it feels when people come across some of your own more extensive utterances!

I am sure, yes.

What did you gain from your post?

I have viewed your way on your internet videos extensively and can only guess which would not be fair of me.

Currently I am guessing that it's a personality offering, possibly aligned with charisma.

On the gist of it all, I do not believe I have seen in my lifetime a general election in which campaigns were run so that the public had the utmost clarity.

If there is any review, it should not be in less than five years in line with Mr Clegg's proposals on democratic votes as accepted by Parliament.

I have no comments to make on the recent Irish referendum other than to say that there should be an EU rule on the timing of referenda so that any should not be chosen in order to have any potential effect on the nature of another country's governance. That was not the case here. Abortion would never have been put to a referendum now after decades against it unless the referendum could damage the UK on Brexit. Those who favour the right to choose won the second day. Britain won the first day for them in providing the only lever in which an Irish Government would ever have sought to hold a referendum. Thanks should go to us - though one might hope that abortion there will not become the main contraception, given some long term issues on that. And personally, I feel the right to abortion in the UK should at least require persistent campaigns about contraception just as with the workplace pension.

[Richard Barrett]

What did you gain from your post?

Mainly an outlet for an occasional mild exasperation!

[Lat-Literal]

Mainly an outlet for an occasional mild exasperation!

OK.

I was just going to add that I have personally known men - not any women - who have used abortion as an alternative to contraception.

The friend of mine who saw three successive girlfriends going through abortion for that very reason ceased to be a friend of mine before it became four or five women and four or five abortions.

I do think that the emphasis in the debate being on women is overly simplistic.

Liberalisation without certain provisos very much plays to the worst kind of male fecklessness.

It probably just so happens that Greg was British and of unusually liberal British (father) and Irish (mother) parentage.

I knew him for years but, as he was an atheist, I wouldn't have known the religious orthodoxy, if any, in his roots.

[french frank]

*what's the collective noun for people entitled to vote in a referendum - it obviously can't be electorate?

I wouldn't be too bothered about using the word 'electorate', since 'to elect' is derived from the Latin 'to choose'. A referendum provides 'a choice'.

You may believe that the voters were clear on both sides, but that isn't what the voters themselves felt, post-referendum:

"There were glaring democratic deficiencies in the run-up to the vote, with previously unreleased polling showing that far too many people felt they were ill-informed about the issues; and that the ‘big beast’ personalities did not appear to engage or convince voters."

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/doing-referendums-differently/

But we're becoming tedious once more …

[ahinton]

I wouldn't be too bothered about using the word 'electorate', since 'to elect' is derived from the Latin 'to choose'. A referendum provides 'a choice'.

You may believe that the voters were clear on both sides, but that isn't what the voters themselves felt, post-referendum:

"There were glaring democratic deficiencies in the run-up to the vote, with previously unreleased polling showing that far too many people felt they were ill-informed about the issues; and that the ‘big beast’ personalities did not appear to engage or convince voters."

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/doing-referendums-differently/

But we're becoming tedious once more …

What's tedious about stating and quoting as you have above? Certain Brexiteers apparently believe that too many of those who complain that they didn't know enough on which to base an intelligent and informed voting decision are Remain supporters indirectly complaining about a result that they do not like; the fact remains (sorry!), however, that the information that was and was not made available during the campaign was, of course, the same for those who voted Remain, those who voted Leave and those who abstained. The electorate as a whole was indeed ill-informed about the issues but this is hardly surprising when the referendum question itself was limited to a simple yes/no answer, as though the entire business of forming a view on it was as simple as that implies.

[Lat-Literal]

What's tedious about stating and quoting as you have above? Certain Brexiteers apparently believe that too many of those who complain that they didn't know enough on which to base an intelligent and informed voting decision are Remain supporters indirectly complaining about a result that they do not like; the fact remains (sorry!), however, that the information that was and was not made available during the campaign was, of course, the same for those who voted Remain, those who voted Leave and those who abstained. The electorate as a whole was indeed ill-informed about the issues but this is hardly surprising when the referendum question itself was limited to a simple yes/no answer, as though the entire business of forming a view on it was as simple as that implies.

I think you have identified a big problem with some referenda. The need to have a yes or no when about four possibilities would be more rational.

But I have tried to define for my own sake what sort of issue does naturally fall into a yes or no and I can't do it. For example, you could conceivably argue that the one on AV was a fairly logical yes or no - more so than some others - yet some might still say there should have been a full PR option.

So what makes the difference between a rational yes/no referendum and an irrational yes/no referendum? Is it simply about personal perspective? Or about what would be a consensus that a topic is complicated or not? What exactly is it? Can it be defined?

[Richard Barrett]

But we're becoming tedious once more …

I give up. I guess the idea of continuing the discussion along something related to the thread title is of less interest than rehashing the same Brexit points that have popped up here dozens of times since the referendum. Have fun!

[french frank]

So what makes the difference between a rational yes/no referendum and an irrational yes/no referendum?

I wouldn't define them as 'rational' and 'irrational'. Living in a pretty multi-cultural area, I wouldn't describe my own attitude towards immigration/foreigners as 'rational' even though there are rational arguments which point to the benefits of immigrants to the country. And if there are others who have 'irrational' fears of immigrants/foreigners, it doesn't mean that everyone who sees the problems caused by such 'irrational fears' as being very real are themselves irrational, for example, for wanting to avoid causing those problems.

Most things are a balance between such 'Yes-No' alternatives, where what is important to me induces me to vote Yes and what is important to someone else else induces them to vote No. I was showing no disrespect in talking of 'entrenched opinions': many of my opinions are 'entrenched' because they are fundamental to the person I am.

Informing oneslf, talking calmly about the issues, discussing them without rancour, will make some people change their minds about some things.