Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why people voted the way they did on Brexit and the huge gulf
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why people voted the way they did on Brexit and the huge gulf between Leave & Remain
Ipsos MORI has Tweeted the above chart this afternoon which is based on polling carried out a year ago.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Leavers voting for the country
I jest, but in weighing up how I will vote, as a well paid metropolitan media type, I recognised that a leave vote would probably be bad for me personally and career wise - indeed it has been. The value of my London flat has stalled and work has been thin on the ground this year.
But when voting, I was asking the questions of what kind of place I wanted my children to grow up in (and if they would ever be able to afford property in a country where immigration far outstrips property supply), and whether or not I felt it was 'fair' that our working class could be undercut in a race to the bottom by people willing to live 8 to a room in beds-in-sheds.
The only benefit to me is the value I place in democractic accountabiity. Fascinating that a mere 11% of remainers considered it important that we make our own laws. To me personally, democratic accountability was by far and away the main reason I voted to leave.
Isn't the country just a collection of individuals, at the end of the day?
Shouldn't we all be voting on our own (long term) best interests?
And wasn't that why we won: a lot of people, in a lot of parts of the country felt that the status quo wasn't working for them?
Sorry Fats!
And yes, we were, and always were, technically sovereign. But only in the sense that we could either choose to obey every EU diktat, or leave. Thank heavens we chose to leave.
https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/923262464342614016
https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/923262858674262016
Slightly born out by this finding
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
a) They go through 1000s of decks and they penny pinch. Those who have played at the World Series of poker will know the quality of the cards is regularly an issue.
b) in the case of the edge sorting it is to do with how the machine cuts the pattern and the defect is very very small and you need to see the card from a certain angle...hence why they wanted the cards rotated. There are YouTube videos showing what it is they are looking for and it is one of those things when you have seen what the defect is it becomes obvious.
The fact there are YouTube videos on edge sorting (and not all are post Ivey case)...you would bloody hope casinos would have wised up.
Than I read the article and understood...
Now because it's 8pm and I'm feeling mischievous, does the fact there is a 70% correlation between Brexit and capital punishment, does this mean the late Baronness Thatcher would have been a leaver?
*Turns to face general direction of Sheffield and waits expectantly*
https://youtu.be/kpaql-bB2jo
Edit: some more background
http://www.pokerupdate.com/news/tournaments-and-miscellaneous/more-details-surrounding-lawsuits-involving-phil-ivey/
Invert "The impact on me personally" and the %'ages aren't credible.
83% of respondents don't consider the impact on them personally to be very important in deciding which way they voted.
Bollox.
So basically, they refused to pay out on the grounds he won because they failed to provide another deck.
Suddenly my sympathy for the judges has lessened. Not gone, but lessened.
The most amazing part is edge sorting was not new. He didn’t stumble on a new play, but somehow all these large casinos were not aware of it / thought he wouldn’t know of it. If he had pulled this at some small Indian casino I can see easily getting away with it, but a genting owned venue playing a game massive in the Far East and where this play has been pulled many times before...that is some serious mismanagement.
Security is the only issue they were close - disappointingly low for Remainers - clearly that element of the campaign did not work.
That said, the casino agreed so it seems reasonable to say they were fools, and we all know what happens to fools and their money. But if the cards had been pre-marked and the casino agreed without knowing it, that would still have been fraud wouldn't it?
Autocorrect is screwing me up now - you can tell I'm a musician not a gambler, it keeps changing 'casino' to 'Casio'.
http://www.flushdraw.net/misc/borgata-v-phil-ivey-alleged-edge-sorting-explained/
These from another lawsuit going on in the US, where Mr Ivey took the Borgata casino for $10m, and the casino is suing Gemaco, the maker of the cards, over the defect. Same cards as in the London case.
I am reasonably happy. Appleton is staying on as Assistant.
The obvious inference from these numbers is simply that Leave and Remain voters have different values and priorities.
No casino would dare play with a deck that a punter brought with him, as they’d be assumed to be marked in some way, and in this case there’s no suggestion that anyone at the casino knew what was going on until after the event.
Leavers voted on personal values, remainers on economic ones
In that very interesting article on them you linked to there is a comment, the gist of which is, why not just have them a single plain colour then rather than patterned at all?
At risk of sounding dense - why don't they? I used to play with cards of solid colour against my grandfather. I never noticed that it made any difference to our playing.
Some reports have rather suggested that with hundreds of amendments it could get bogged down for ages - that can't happen (in the Commons) because of the timetable motion.
Much easier (and more sporting) to label and hurl rocks at one another.
I’m going to speculate that casinos have changed both the design of their cards and their willingness to bend or change rules for high stakes games, as a result of these cases.
If you say so, mate.
I know that's (slightly) tautological. But my point is that, had we never joined, but the EU developed in exactly the same way with the UK outside, I expect joining it would be a rather eccentric opinion shared by <20% of the populace, albeit a relatively well-off/intellectual 20%.
You can also get quite a lot from reading her book Statecraft.
Former Conservative Party chair Lord Tebbit claims air pollution is making people transgender.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/10/24/former-conservative-party-chair-lord-tebbit-claims-air-pollution-is-making-people-transgender/
re your post at 19.22 last thread.
I think that you were wrong, but understand why. I too thought Labour were shambolically organised at the onset of the June campaign, but how wrong we were.
The Labour party looked a mess initially, but swiftly seized the initiative, wrote a better manifesto in a couple of days. They organised a scratch campaign that swept the media, organised far more doorstep campaigning, caught the mood of the country and even reacted better to events such as the terrorist attacks.
In part it was because the Tories were spectacularly inept (Ruth in Scotland excepted), but Labour also swept aside LDs, SNP, Greens and PC. It should be studied as a classic of mobile defence and counterattack. Given another couple of weeks and it would have been PM Corbyn.
Other parties should not underestimate Labour. A mass membership, infrastructure of trade union organisers, and eager footsoldiers combined with a cadre of organisers and campaigners is formidable.
It was like the Red Army in Barbarossa. Initially panic and confusion, before solidifying, organising and repulsing the invaders. Mass has its own power.
(With apologies to Sunil!)
That wasn't so much asking for it as begging for it with an offer of free owls thrown in!
"Join the EU and we can fix the NHS" would have won a landslide from the mid 90's onwards.
It is no wonder only 11% of Remainers think we ought to be able to make our own laws.
Tories should note the need for an open contest of their own. Not easy in government mind you.
No. Merely because they pulled something together that just about did what was needed does not mean they were not hopelessly disorganised. Their manifesto was a shambles - they themselves admitted it was not fully complete, and although they claimed it was costed the costings do not stand up to even cursory examination. Their television performances were inept and vacillating - shadow cabinet interviews were frequently farcical.
However, they had three advantages. One was, as you note, the enthusiasm of the activists, and there were plenty of them to be enthused. This had the effect of carrying along the doubters and giving the appearance of unity. Two was Corbyn, who fought a superb personal campaign showing energy, skill and desire on the stump. That was unexpected although with hindsight it shouldn't have been. The third was that Theresa May, on manifesto, personality, timing, candidates, old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all fought the worst campaign since the strategic blunders of McClellan at theBattle of Antietam.
So all in all, they survived. But they were still a shambles and the fact that these unsuitable people are getting through may be a sign of that.
They will get their revenge via Corbynite policies. A Brexit for the workers, not a Brexit for the Bosses.
Worrying about this stuff isn't blind xenophobia.
It did however mean that Corbyn was very much in practice at campaigning, working crowds, defending his views and talking to a range of people in a way May really, painfully wasn't. That clearly did make a difference.
Under Socialism the workers are meant to be the bosses.
So a Brexit under Corbyn that was not for the bosses would, logically, hit the workers.
(Don't worry, I'm teasing. But there is a point here - while it's fun to bash bankers and managers, ultimately many of them are there for a reason and if they go, many other things go too.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anz91PPMPw8
In her speech in Florence the prime minister formally requested what she had described as an implementation period of “about two years” to cushion Britain’s exit from the EU in March 2019, during which the UK would stay in the single market and customs union.
The Irish government has publicly called for a longer period, of up to five years, to allow businesses to prepare for changes in customs procedures, a proposal that has the support of many in the UK.
However, senior EU officials believe the most likely outcome will involve any withdrawal agreement stipulating 31 December 2020 as the date when the country leaves the bloc’s legal structures.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/25/brexit-transition-period-likely-limited-20-months-eu-officials-say?CMP=share_btn_tw
You are of course correct that most people don't vote on detailed manifesto pledges. My point was that Labour, indeed Corbyn, had no real clue of what those ideas you mention meant or how they would be delivered. To take only one example, a manifesto promising free tuition for the middle classes while keeping benefit cuts for the poorest is not anti-austerity. It's indicative of muddled thinking.
Edit - and to get back to the main point, if they couldn't get that right, small wonder they couldn't put a half-decent vetting process in place to weed out the nutters among their candidates.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/923271189484789760
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Reminds me of the famous time the SDP put out several hundred thousand copies of a leaflet stating proudly that their economic policies would reduce employment by one million in three years.
Government is about detail, but campaigning is more about themes. Labour got that right.
Sure, politicians promise more than they can deliver. No surprises there!
Surely everyone here who sends out important documents has someone (or two) who hasn’t seen it before read it before the big red button gets pressed??
I'll never forget his vile attacks on Michael Portillo in the 2001 Tory leadership contest.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/923271189484789760
I personally find the EP more representative than the HoC for my political views, so am happy with their laws.