With reference to Vernon Bogdanor (“Why Britain’s voters must have a second referendum on Brexit”, Comment). While the fact that 87% voted for pro-Brexit parties does not prove that the country has accepted Brexit, it is undoubtedly true that the main parties opposing Brexit – the Scottish Nationalists, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Plaid Cymru – all lost vote share.
One possible explanation for this is that many people who voted Remain in the referendum do not regard Brexit as the most important factor determining their vote and were prepared to vote for pro-Brexit parties because they supported their other policies. Furthermore, if there had been a swing against government policy you would expect the Conservative vote to go down and the opposition to go up. But this did not happen. It is only true that there was a bigger swing to Labour than to the Conservatives.
I agree that in order for a second referendum to be meaningful it would be necessary for there to be a clear understanding of the terms on which we would rejoin. But this assumes that the issue is a binary one. I am sure that there are sufficient electors who might wish to leave with no deal as to make it reasonable to include that on the ballot. Perhaps we could have a two-stage referendum: stage one to determine the final two options and stage two to make a final decision. This would be similar to the French presidential election.
Turning to the question of changing the voting age, there are arguments both ways on the general principle. However, in the specific case of a second referendum, this would be seen by many as a deliberate attempt to gerrymander the vote by altering the electorate. So I think that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.
Andrew Tampion
Hinckley, Leicestershire
Station building back on track
Congratulations to Mark Townsend for highlighting the problems of Hordern, Co Durham, where getting to Sunderland, seven miles away, requires a circuitous sequence of buses (“Regeneration: how one proud pit village is starting to reverse the tides of misfortune”, News).
Although Hordern does not have a rail service, it will be getting one soon. The government has agreed to contribute £4.4m to a £10.55m station with the aim of improving access to jobs in an area with low levels of car ownership. The new station will be near housing in Peterlee, and will also serve Shotton Colliery, Easington Colliery, Easington Village and Blackhall Colliery.
It should take around 40 minutes to get to Newcastle, with services as well to Seaham, Sunderland, Heworth, Hexham, Hartlepool, Seaton Carew, Billingham, Stockton, Thornaby, Middlesbrough, James Cook, Marton, Gypsy Lane and Nunthorpe.
Railfuture has been campaigning for years for communities such as Hordern to get their trains back and railways have proved remarkably successful in encouraging regeneration.
Five new stations are to be built over the next three years, with help from the Department for Transport’s new stations fund. But many more are needed.
More than 400 stations have been opened (or reopened) since 1960, along with 600 miles of new track, as revealed in Raifuture’s 2017 book, Britain’s Growing Railway.
Ray King, editor, Railwatch
London E9
An avoidable farce
The negotiating stance of “constructive ambiguity” towards Europe, quoted by Andrew Rawnsley (Comment), who quotes Keir Starmer, who quotes David Davis, would better be described as “cowardly ambivalence”. Both Tory and Labour position papers on Brexit are little more than lists of aspirations, delivered with an arrogant assumption that the rest of Europe will be grateful for our final clarity on the matter – and they are far too late.
I have no party affiliation, but it is clear that if dissident Tory and Labour MPs had backed the Liberal Democrats’ unambiguous position, both before and after the referendum, the dangerous farce that Brexit has become might have been avoided altogether. But that would have required courage. Instead, they subordinated the national interest to saving their political skins.
That political cowardice has characterised the whole European debate from the beginning.
Bill Angus
Kendal
Cumbria
Planning for dementia
Your science editor’s article on individuals who discover unwelcome predisposition to Alzheimer’s raises more issues (“Genetic ancestry tests stir anxiety over Alzheimer’s”, News).
The incidence of dementia is on an upward curve. For the NHS and social care, this is an impending crisis. Foreknowledge of which patients on their list have an increased propensity for these diseases could be a useful diagnostic tool for GPs.
I am in my 70s and have seen two close family members wither and die from dementia. I do not know how I would cope with knowing that I carry the Apo4 gene but I would want my GP to have that information. End-of-life planning can be positive, short or long term. Genetic information could contribute to that process and to the necessary debate on attitudes to suicide and assistance.
Graham Kelly
North Stoke, Oxfordshire
Give modern grans their due
It’s a great idea to write a children’s book about a grandma with dementia, but how many children can identify with the little old lady with a bun and cardie (“Grandma Forgets: The picture book that helps families cope with pathos of dementia?”, News). Their grandmothers are more likely to wear jeans and T-shirts, and may well be in their 50s or 60s. I’m older than that, but none of my generation of grannies looks remotely like the one pictured. I’m sure my granddaughters would agree with me.
Sarah Carter
Canterbury
Not bog standard English
Will Hutton’s “toilet currency” was a new one on me and with no shedding of light from the Oxford, Cambridge or even Urban dictionaries (“In Edinburgh, I understood…”, Comment). Sadly, the implication is more suggestive of our going down the pan and sinking rather than feeling flush after Brexit.
John Trounce
Hove
