@David_Cameron: The Leave campaign is wrong to say there'll be a 2nd referendum if we vote to remain in the EU. This is a referendum and not a neverendum.
A good poster would be of all the politicians, FTSE supporters, CBI and TUC pointing and laughing at a common script and chinking champagne glasses next to some normal people who look dejected, and defeated.
Caption: "Your future, or theirs?"
#Vote Leave
Or you could the same with Putin & Trump - a far more scary duo of supporters than any you list.
I fully expect Remain to do that, but I don't think it'll be as powerful as you and TSE think it will be.
Neither idea would be effective. Both preach to the converted.
What might your ideas be, for either side?
I posted a couple upthread (1.05pm)
The key is to focus in on the doubts which floaters already have. For the Leave side, that's probably bureaucracy and immigration. For the Remain side, the economy, economy and economy.
Thanks interesting.
I think Leave could do a positive poster capturing the concept of sovereignty and an optimistic future for the UK, but I'm not quite sure how to visualise it.
Will have a think..
I think we should have a poster of Cameron, Osborne, Mandelson, Juncker, with horns and fangs, and wearing Nazi armbands.
Massive lol!!
I have NOT Tweeted this, for obvious reasons, but I emailed TSE the famous photo of Hitler posing in front of the Eiffel Tower, with the words:
Adolf Hitler believed in a Single European Superstate
As a question, not entirely innocent, how close does the brains trust think is the correlation between turnout and result in the referendum? ie can Remain win on a turnout of 55%? Can Leave win on a turnout of 65%?
I have long argued that turnout will not affect the result much.
In the Euro elections we get turnouts in the 30's, yet most vote for parties of Remain.
I also think that a low turnout by the young is affected by an increasing skew to Remain. It is young C2DE that will not turnout while young ABC1 do.
I think the net effect of turnout on decision is pretty slight.
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
I find it amusing that you have no idea of the irony inherent in the phrase 'scientific consensus'.
It's an accurate description. The overwhelming body of serious opinion agrees on the core facts, matching the dictionary definition of consensus: "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people". While not unanimous, it's as unanimous as you are going to get. Man made climate change is as much a scientific consensus as competitive evolution of species, for example. Beyond the generally agreed core facts there is a lot of scope for different theories, opinions and general sceptism, however.
In this instance, I'm not actually disputing the existence of a concensus (that's another argument entirely), I'm just baffled by the trumpeting of one in a field such as science as being something beneficial. It's like Gallileo never happened. Very kind of you to allow scientists to investigate ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS humans are responsible for global warming though. Any colour of Ford as long as etc.
You have to agree on certain core principles otherwise you end up with noise. The difference between man made climate climate change and competitive evolution of species (as examples) is that the first is politically charged. Everyone accepts the second and does their research using those assumptions. Building on assumptions moves the science forward.
No you don't. Science is there to observe and record, in a dispassionate manner. You can start with a hypothesis, but you have to be prepared to have that challenged and overturned if that's what the results show. Your attitude is the sort of thing that ends up fiddling the data when it shows 'not enough warming'.
I don't think that's the case, actually, at least not to an extent that undermines the overwhelming evidence of man made climate change.
I admit, I have never understood the climate change is a conspiracy thing, given how strong the evidence is. Why not be sceptical about the modelling - will it actually be catastrophic? Or on the politics - is there anything sensible that can be done to prevent it? Those seem to me to be more intellectually rewarding discussions.
As a question, not entirely innocent, how close does the brains trust think is the correlation between turnout and result in the referendum? ie can Remain win on a turnout of 55%? Can Leave win on a turnout of 65%?
I think in many ways, trying to analyse politics through "class" is really redundant these days -- "class" and annual income/worth are in many ways now completely different things. For example, you've probably got some quite old plumbers, who's education makes them "working class" (and perhaps the way they still like to think of themselves) but who have built up good incomes and savings and have expensive houses. Then on the other hand, there's a lot of young people who are "middle class" by virtue of having gone to university, but who aren't yet able to get up the jobs/income or housing ladders.
I think it would be much more illuminating for pollsters to give breakdowns based on incomes rather than self-identified "class".
there's a strong argument for allowing a bit of time for preliminary discussions with our EU friends, and for discussions within the government, party and country at large as to what sort of deal we should be seeking. The two-year deadline is already tight.
The "official" line is talks can't start until Article 50 is triggered
I think that is probably true, in that the EU bureaucrats and EU countries would not enter serious negotiations until we light the deep-blue touchpaper. Even so, I'm sure there'd be exploratory discussions, if only to try to clarify issues and procedures.
Procedural question. Is the Article 50 notification something that actually needs to be voted on in Parliament, or is it something the govt can declare?
I think it has to come from the British Government i.e. the Cabinet, and that has a Remain majority.
The PM signs it, not the cabinet. Remember Gordo...
He may sign it, but surely on behalf of the Government.
Or have we moved to Presidential Government instead of Cabinet Government?
It can be any authorised member of the government. The Maastricht Treaty was signed by Douglas Hurd (then Foreign Secretary) and Francis Maude (I think). Ultimately, whoever it is is signing on behalf of the Queen.
A good poster would be of all the politicians, FTSE supporters, CBI and TUC pointing and laughing at a common script and chinking champagne glasses next to some normal people who look dejected, and defeated.
Caption: "Your future, or theirs?"
#Vote Leave
Or you could the same with Putin & Trump - a far more scary duo of supporters than any you list.
I fully expect Remain to do that, but I don't think it'll be as powerful as you and TSE think it will be.
Neither idea would be effective. Both preach to the converted.
What might your ideas be, for either side?
I posted a couple upthread (1.05pm)
The key is to focus in on the doubts which floaters already have. For the Leave side, that's probably bureaucracy and immigration. For the Remain side, the economy, economy and economy.
Thanks interesting.
I think Leave could do a positive poster capturing the concept of sovereignty and an optimistic future for the UK, but I'm not quite sure how to visualise it.
Will have a think..
Wasn't there one which had a lion in a net?
Good one. Shackled to a corpse is more provocative but a phrase Hannan has used in the past too.
I find it amusing that you have no idea of the irony inherent in the phrase 'scientific consensus'.
It's an accurate description. The overwhelming body of serious opinion agrees on the core facts, matching the dictionary definition of consensus: "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people". While not unanimous, it's as unanimous as you are going to get. Man made climate change is as much a scientific consensus as competitive evolution of species, for example. Beyond the generally agreed core facts there is a lot of scope for different theories, opinions and general sceptism, however.
In this instance, I'm not actually disputing the existence of a concensus (that's another argument entirely), I'm just baffled by the trumpeting of one in a field such as science as being something beneficial. It's like Gallileo never happened. Very kind of you to allow scientists to investigate ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS humans are responsible for global warming though. Any colour of Ford as long as etc.
You have to agree on certain core principles otherwise you end up with noise. The difference between man made climate climate change and competitive evolution of species (as examples) is that the first is politically charged. Everyone accepts the second and does their research using those assumptions. Building on assumptions moves the science forward.
No. The difference is that the theory of evolution was based upon long term observation backed up by experimentation whilst the AGW hypothesis is based on models. Models are not the equivalent of experimentation.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Procedural question. Is the Article 50 notification something that actually needs to be voted on in Parliament, or is it something the govt can declare?
Constitutionally, the government has a free hand in foreign affairs unless parliament chooses to intervene. however, the consequence of invoking Article 50 would affect a huge amount of domestic legislation which obviously would need parliament's assent.
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
How about a series:
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
The SNP weren't proclaiming themselves losers before the referendum had been run.
This is a utterly moronic strategy by Leave, it totally robs them of any form of moral authority in the result of a narrow Remain. And crushes them if it is a narrow Leave.
I find it amusing that you have no idea of the irony inherent in the phrase 'scientific consensus'.
It's an accurate description. The overwhelming body of serious opinion agrees on the core facts, matching the dictionary definition of consensus: "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people". While not unanimous, it's as unanimous as you are going to get. Man made climate change is as much a scientific consensus as competitive evolution of species, for example. Beyond the generally agreed core facts there is a lot of scope for different theories, opinions and general sceptism, however.
In this instance, I'm not actually disputing the existence of a concensus (that's another argument entirely), I'm just baffled by the trumpeting of one in a field such as science as being something beneficial. It's like Gallileo never happened. Very kind of you to allow scientists to investigate ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS humans are responsible for global warming though. Any colour of Ford as long as etc.
You have to agree on certain core principles otherwise you end up with noise. The difference between man made climate climate change and competitive evolution of species (as examples) is that the first is politically charged. Everyone accepts the second and does their research using those assumptions. Building on assumptions moves the science forward.
No you don't. Science is there to observe and record, in a dispassionate manner. You can start with a hypothesis, but you have to be prepared to have that challenged and overturned if that's what the results show. Your attitude is the sort of thing that ends up fiddling the data when it shows 'not enough warming'.
I don't think that's the case, actually, at least not to an extent that undermines the overwhelming evidence of man made climate change.
I admit, I have never understood the climate change is a conspiracy thing, given how strong the evidence is. Why not be sceptical about the modelling - will it actually be catastrophic? Or on the politics - is there anything sensible that can be done to prevent it? Those seem to me to be more intellectually rewarding discussions.
Google Climategate and read the emails about bent stats, actively barring opposing views, et al. If you're open-minded - it will appal you.
I think it has to come from the British Government i.e. the Cabinet, and that has a Remain majority.
The PM signs it, not the cabinet. Remember Gordo...
He may sign it, but surely on behalf of the Government.
Or have we moved to Presidential Government instead of Cabinet Government?
It can be any authorised member of the government. The Maastricht Treaty was signed by Douglas Hurd (then Foreign Secretary) and Francis Maude (I think). Ultimately, whoever it is is signing on behalf of the Queen.
I've just spotted a nice betting opportunity on the EU Referendum turnout percentage on a combination bet as follows:
Back the turnout to be under 63.5% at odds of evens with Ladbrokes, staking 47.83%
Back the turnout to be over 60.5% at odds of 5/6 with Paddy Power, staking the remaining 52.17% of your stake.
Should the actual turnout percentage be either above 63.5% or below 60.5%, in either event you lose a modest 4.35% of your combined stake. Should it however fall within this seemingly fertile 3% band, then you both bets pay out and you would win 100% of your combined stake, equivalent to odds of 23/1 ..... tasty or what!
As ever DYOR, especially as regards the two bookies' precise definitions of "turnout" - I took it on trust in order just to to get on while the opportunity remained there.
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
How about a series:
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
and then follow up with similar messages
"The EU isn't working" - I already did that -see upthread
I find it amusing that you have no idea of the irony inherent in the phrase 'scientific consensus'.
It's an accurate description. The overwhelming body of serious opinion agrees on the core facts, matching the dictionary definition of consensus: "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people". While not unanimous, it's as unanimous as you are going to get. Man made climate change is as much a scientific consensus as competitive evolution of species, for example. Beyond the generally agreed core facts there is a lot of scope for different theories, opinions and general sceptism, however.
In this instance, I'm not actually disputing the existence of a concensus (that's another argument entirely), I'm just baffled by the trumpeting of one in a field such as science as being something beneficial. It's like Gallileo never happened. Very kind of you to allow scientists to investigate ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS humans are responsible for global warming though. Any colour of Ford as long as etc.
You have to agree on certain core principles otherwise you end up with noise. The difference between man made climate climate change and competitive evolution of species (as examples) is that the first is politically charged. Everyone accepts the second and does their research using those assumptions. Building on assumptions moves the science forward.
No you don't. Science is there to observe and record, in a dispassionate manner. You can start with a hypothesis, but you have to be prepared to have that challenged and overturned if that's what the results show. Your attitude is the sort of thing that ends up fiddling the data when it shows 'not enough warming'.
I don't think that's the case, actually, at least not to an extent that undermines the overwhelming evidence of man made climate change.
I admit, I have never understood the climate change is a conspiracy thing, given how strong the evidence is. Why not be sceptical about the modelling - will it actually be catastrophic? Or on the politics - is there anything sensible that can be done to prevent it? Those seem to me to be more intellectually rewarding discussions.
Google Climategate and read the emails about bent stats, actively barring opposing views, et al. If you're open-minded - it will appal you.
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
How about a series:
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
and then follow up with similar messages
The problem with that is we are not Greece. It doesn't resonate. If we were on the way into and not out of the EU , it would be completely different.
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
How about a series:
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
and then follow up with similar messages
That's the sort of thing, emotive and personal. IMO Leave aren't playing this riff nearly enough - too much about us/technical.
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
How about a series:
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
and then follow up with similar messages
The problem with that is we are not Greece. It doesn't resonate. If we were on the way into and not out of the EU , it would be completely different.
Dead kids on beaches weren't ours either - it's was very emotive, look what it caused.
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
The BES were the only one to correctly predict the 2015 GE (they do face-to-face interviews and repeatedly contact everyone in their original sample, which gets over most pollsters' problems with disinterested voters not answering requests).
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
Yes, but 1) Scotland in recent times has higher turnout than the rest of us (fact) and 2) Independence is a more important issue than the EC in the minds of most voters in Scotland (my supposition).
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
How about a series:
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
and then follow up with similar messages
That's the sort of thing, emotive and personal. IMO Leave aren't playing this riff nearly enough - too much about us/technical.
The BES were the only one to correctly predict the 2015 GE (they do face-to-face interviews and repeatedly contact everyone in their original sample, which gets over most pollsters' problems with disinterested voters not answering requests).
This will go down to the wire.
IIRC BES had the gap between Con and Lab right, but still overestimated Con and Lab, I think they had the Tories on 40%
As a question, not entirely innocent, how close does the brains trust think is the correlation between turnout and result in the referendum? ie can Remain win on a turnout of 55%? Can Leave win on a turnout of 65%?
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
How about a series:
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
and then follow up with similar messages
That's the sort of thing, emotive and personal. IMO Leave aren't playing this riff nearly enough - too much about us/technical.
Thought you where against project fear tactics.
Stating statistics isn't fear mongering. It's facts
The polling oracles British Election Study have produced a poll for EU Referendum...... BUT when accounting for likely turnout, the result is: Leave 45.0% Remain 44.5% ....The BES were the only one to correctly predict the 2015 GE
Danny wow. 22,000 survey. Also on a quick glance the "certainty to vote" is self reporting and may not be based on past behaviour.
The BES were the only one to correctly predict the 2015 GE (they do face-to-face interviews and repeatedly contact everyone in their original sample, which gets over most pollsters' problems with disinterested voters not answering requests).
This will go down to the wire.
IIRC BES had the gap between Con and Lab right, but still overestimated Con and Lab, I think they had the Tories on 40%
chestnut - noted the 10/10 certainty but these are AFAIK self certifying so an optimistic young person says 10/10 "I will vote" whereas in reality they are closer to a 1 in 3 chance of voting. Or do you see it differently?
Invoking Article 50 itself does not require a parliamentary vote, but that the (inevitable and ultimate) repeal of the European Communities Act does.
If Cameron did not invoke Article 50 within - say - 10 days, does anyone think he would avoid a challenge? And survive a challenge?
You are right that there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of the Conservative government not accepting the result of the referendum. The party has been split for years, has agreed to disagree, and has ended up with everyone accepting that the only way to resolve the issue is through the referendum. Whichever side they are on, pretty much everyone is going to accept the result - as you rightly point out, it would be electoral suicide not to to do so (not to mention impossible within the party itself). For that matter, I think MPs from other parties would mostly agree.
Whether Article 50 would be invoked as quickly as you suggest is less clear to me. I don't think there would be a long delay (because apart from anything else, we'd need to get this over with before bumping up against the next election). On the other hand, there's a strong argument for allowing a bit of time for preliminary discussions with out EU friends, and for discussions with the government, party and country at large as to what sort of deal we should be seeking. The two-year deadline is already tight.
Yep.
Discussions with countries outside the EU that we need trade agreements with, then preliminary ones with EU itself, then invoke Article 50 at least two years before General Election due.
'cept the UK will have two years to discuss new terms; everything can and would come out during that time. I don't think the electorate would stand for negotiations about negotiations; they would see it as a weasel.
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
How about a series:
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
and then follow up with similar messages
That's the sort of thing, emotive and personal. IMO Leave aren't playing this riff nearly enough - too much about us/technical.
Thought you where against project fear tactics.
Project Fear is saying that LEAVING would be an unmitigated disaster.
On the remain side, how about a poster campaign showing beautiful parts of Europe with the slogan 'Your EU'?
We're not leaving Europe, just the the EU.
Maybe but it would make all those places just a bit more 'foreign' than they are if your passport says European Union on it. They will be 'theirs' not 'ours'. It's an emotional appeal.
I do hope that Roger is taking notes on how he might better do his job. The level of knowledge on what makes an effective advertisement is remarkable. Clearly, like teaching, it's something anybody can do well.
Could leave appeal to young people and BAME voters by bigging up how we might be able to buy more African produce. A sort of LEAVE live aid with variation on the guitar symbol After thought Imagine if they could get St. Bob!
Yes it would work in facebook land if a "trusted" person or 2 fronted it.
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
There's definitely something to be said for giving things an ethical dimension, though it's a tall order considering the campaigns so far!
The BES were the only one to correctly predict the 2015 GE (they do face-to-face interviews and repeatedly contact everyone in their original sample, which gets over most pollsters' problems with disinterested voters not answering requests).
This will go down to the wire.
IIRC BES had the gap between Con and Lab right, but still overestimated Con and Lab, I think they had the Tories on 40%
So, who did they underestimate?
I think it was the Lib Dems/UKIP/Greens. I need to check
Is this British Election Study going to shift the betting?
Danny565 said: The polling oracles British Election Study have produced a poll for EU Referendum...... BUT when accounting for likely turnout, the result is: Leave 45.0% Remain 44.5% ....The BES were the only one to correctly predict the 2015 GE. 22,000 survey.
@SiobhanSynnot: Unfortunately for Stewart Hosie and Angus MacNeil, Serena Cowdy's blog is a gift that delivers more often than Santa https://t.co/vYldYoNa9N
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
Invoking Article 50 itself does not require a parliamentary vote, but that the (inevitable and ultimate) repeal of the European Communities Act does.
If Cameron did not invoke Article 50 within - say - 10 days, does anyone think he would avoid a challenge? And survive a challenge?
You are right that there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of the Conservative government not accepting the result of the referendum. The party has been split for years, has agreed to disagree, and has ended up with everyone accepting that the only way to resolve the issue is through the referendum. Whichever side they are on, pretty much everyone is going to accept the result - as you rightly point out, it would be electoral suicide not to to do so (not to mention impossible within the party itself). For that matter, I think MPs from other parties would mostly agree.
Whether Article 50 would be invoked as quickly as you suggest is less clear to me. I don't think there would be a long delay (because apart from anything else, we'd need to get this over with before bumping up against the next election). On the other hand, there's a strong argument for allowing a bit of time for preliminary discussions with out EU friends, and for discussions with the government, party and country at large as to what sort of deal we should be seeking. The two-year deadline is already tight.
Yep.
Discussions with countries outside the EU that we need trade agreements with, then preliminary ones with EU itself, then invoke Article 50 at least two years before General Election due.
'cept the UK will have two years to discuss new terms; everything can and would come out during that time. I don't think the electorate would stand for negotiations about negotiations; they would see it as a weasel.
I don't think they will care.
If the PM flies off to Berlin for a discussion, whether preliminary or not, then they will be ok. They won't bother about whether Article 50 has been invoked or not.
I do hope that Roger is taking notes on how he might better do his job. The level of knowledge on what makes an effective advertisement is remarkable. Clearly, like teaching, it's something anybody can do well.
Amazingly, people who work in advertising or PR aren't grown in test tubes. They've expertise - but no monopoly on a good idea. I speak as one myself.
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
Invoking Article 50 itself does not require a parliamentary vote, but that the (inevitable and ultimate) repeal of the European Communities Act does.
If Cameron did not invoke Article 50 within - say - 10 days, does anyone think he would avoid a challenge? And survive a challenge?
You are right that there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of the Conservative government not accepting the result of the referendum. The party has been split for years, has agreed to disagree, and has ended up with everyone accepting that the only way to resolve the issue is through the referendum. Whichever side they are on, pretty much everyone is going to accept the result - as you rightly point out, it would be electoral suicide not to to do so (not to mention impossible within the party itself). For that matter, I think MPs from other parties would mostly agree.
Whether Article 50 would be invoked as quickly as you suggest is less clear to me. I don't think there would be a long delay (because apart from anything else, we'd need to get this over with before bumping up against the next election). On the other hand, there's a strong argument for allowing a bit of time for preliminary discussions with out EU friends, and for discussions with the government, party and country at large as to what sort of deal we should be seeking. The two-year deadline is already tight.
Yep.
Discussions with countries outside the EU that we need trade agreements with, then preliminary ones with EU itself, then invoke Article 50 at least two years before General Election due.
'cept the UK will have two years to discuss new terms; everything can and would come out during that time. I don't think the electorate would stand for negotiations about negotiations; they would see it as a weasel.
I don't think they will care.
If the PM flies off to Berlin for a discussion, whether preliminary or not, then they will be ok. They won't bother about whether Article 50 has been invoked or not.
I think following a Leave vote, the press will be full of and will dissect Article 50, its whys and wherefores and nothing else.
In that environment I think the PM will be under pressure.
chestnut - noted the 10/10 certainty but these are AFAIK self certifying so an optimistic young person says 10/10 "I will vote" whereas in reality they are closer to a 1 in 3 chance of voting. Or do you see it differently?
They all use different scales to assess likelihood so it's hard to read across.
ORB has 52% (Very likely/definite) but only 22% (definite) among 18-24 year olds.
TNS is lower on both markers, while ICM have 42% at 10/10 on the net.
I do hope that Roger is taking notes on how he might better do his job. The level of knowledge on what makes an effective advertisement is remarkable. Clearly, like teaching, it's something anybody can do well.
Comments
If you voted in 1997 you'd have known the wall came down 7 years before, when Kinnock was Labour Leader.....
Adolf Hitler believed in a Single European Superstate
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
@JamieRoss7: Sturgeon just pips Rennie to the post. So close.
Willie Rennie: 5
Nicola Sturgeon: 63
Abstentions: 59
In the Euro elections we get turnouts in the 30's, yet most vote for parties of Remain.
I also think that a low turnout by the young is affected by an increasing skew to Remain. It is young C2DE that will not turnout while young ABC1 do.
I think the net effect of turnout on decision is pretty slight.
I admit, I have never understood the climate change is a conspiracy thing, given how strong the evidence is. Why not be sceptical about the modelling - will it actually be catastrophic? Or on the politics - is there anything sensible that can be done to prevent it? Those seem to me to be more intellectually rewarding discussions.
How? Posting a link to a picture hosted elsewhere does not affect PB.
I think it would be much more illuminating for pollsters to give breakdowns based on incomes rather than self-identified "class".
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
and then follow up with similar messages
This is a utterly moronic strategy by Leave, it totally robs them of any form of moral authority in the result of a narrow Remain. And crushes them if it is a narrow Leave.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
I've just spotted a nice betting opportunity on the EU Referendum turnout percentage on a combination bet as follows:
Back the turnout to be under 63.5% at odds of evens with Ladbrokes, staking 47.83%
Back the turnout to be over 60.5% at odds of 5/6 with Paddy Power, staking the remaining 52.17% of your stake.
Should the actual turnout percentage be either above 63.5% or below 60.5%, in either event you lose a modest 4.35% of your combined stake. Should it however fall within this seemingly fertile 3% band, then you both bets pay out and you would win 100% of your combined stake, equivalent to odds of 23/1 ..... tasty or what!
As ever DYOR, especially as regards the two bookies' precise definitions of "turnout" - I took it on trust in order just to to get on while the opportunity remained there.
"That is horse-shit! They will not kill *us*!"
And ends up getting killed by the very troops he thought would protect him.
"I believe whatever doesn't kill EU, simply makes you *stranger*!"
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65%
May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
Remain 43.0%
Leave 40.5%
BUT when accounting for likely turnout, the result is:
Leave 45.0%
Remain 44.5%
http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/eu-poll-ethnic-minorities-hold-balance-power/32800
The BES were the only one to correctly predict the 2015 GE (they do face-to-face interviews and repeatedly contact everyone in their original sample, which gets over most pollsters' problems with disinterested voters not answering requests).
This will go down to the wire.
2) Independence is a more important issue than the EC in the minds of most voters in Scotland (my supposition).
Dole queues of young spaniards and Italians with 'Your EU?'
We're not leaving Europe, just the the EU.
ORB 53/47 Remain (phones 10/10 to vote - 57% turnout)
ICM 52/48 Leave (web 10/10 to vote - 64% turnout)
TNS 52/48 Leave (wed Def/Prob vote - 64% turnout)
If turnout goes over 70, Remain win
If its under 55, leave Win.
In between, it's a crap shoot.
BTW new Class 374 Eurostars trains already in service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_374
Europe was lovely - before the EU got their hands on it.
Or do you see it differently?
A sort of LEAVE live aid with variation on the guitar symbol
After thought
Imagine if they could get St. Bob!
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/731267847037562880
Stat of how we could make Africa way more prosperous if we left.
For Remain, I think, it would be the fear of disorder and the risk to lifestyles.
For Leave it would be immigration. In fact UKIP already produced a series, as shown here.
There is potential for going positive. Like this
https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/remainbbc.png
Danny565 said:
The polling oracles British Election Study have produced a poll for EU Referendum......
BUT when accounting for likely turnout, the result is:
Leave 45.0%
Remain 44.5%
....The BES were the only one to correctly predict the 2015 GE. 22,000 survey.
If the PM flies off to Berlin for a discussion, whether preliminary or not, then they will be ok. They won't bother about whether Article 50 has been invoked or not.
In that environment I think the PM will be under pressure.
ORB has 52% (Very likely/definite) but only 22% (definite) among 18-24 year olds.
TNS is lower on both markers, while ICM have 42% at 10/10 on the net.
It's a game of assumption.
My favourite conversations go like this:
'Did you see that really great ad last night? It was so funny - cool and edgy too!
What was it for?
No idea.....
Plus I'd get into trouble with my sense of humour with the Norfolk mob.
So Norfolkers you do realise why Marty McFly's mum trying to sleep with him in Back To The Future was a bad idea?