politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What price democracy?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What price democracy? 

In late 2018, as Britain wanders down the path marked Brexit, the route ahead still looks murky, thorny and pot-holed. The country is still divided almost equally between those who think Britain was right to vote Leave in 2016 and those who think it was a mistake. An increasing number of hardcore Remainers are calling for a second referendum, while many hardcore Leavers argue that would make the first referendum meaningless, undermining democracy. 

Read the full story here

Fishing

You don't consider the Swiss answer of holding referenda when a petition with a certain number of valid signatures is sent in. (Except for constitutional changes, where referenda are mandatory). I think that has a lot to be said for it.

Similar systems operate in many US states, mostly in the west.

And for those on this site, think about all the extra betting opportunities such a system would present!

Anorak

Nice article, but not convinced by your logic joining these bits:

On the other hand, if each voter is individually more likely to vote incorrectly, then adding more voters makes things worse, making the probability of a bad decision more and more likely.

If you run with this logic, one implication of Condorcet’s Jury Theorem is that we should not ask the public for their views on complex problems because they will get it wrong.

You're turning an "if they get it wrong" into a "will get it wrong" with no justification.

The argument should be that complex decisions should not be taken by the public because - en masse - they have neither the time or inclination to consider things deeply. There is a risk that they will get it wrong. One would never put power generation policy to the public, for example (and yes, I know the government have hardly covered themselves in glory there).

Stereotomy

FPT

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised that people have not heard of the Marchioness disaster. My memory of it is very clear indeed and I remember it getting huge amounts of coverage - not least because Lawrence Dallaglio's sister was on board.

Are you sure (as in I know his sister was on board but I didn't think he featured at all in the coverage)? Lawrence Dallaglio hadn't even made his first appearance for Wasps yet and was 6 years away from making his international debut.

Over the years I meant.

I remember the Marchioness. The coroner ordered the hands of the bodies to be cut off for some identification reason, without the consent of the relatives, which caused them distress. And there was an unpleasant air of from some of “Who cares? They’re yuppies.” which was in quite as much bad taste as this Grenfell video. They were young Londoners having a great night out who died a horrible death in the dark. It was quite a thing at one point to have parties on boats. Our office had its summer party on one, one year. It happened to people like me, with families and friends and their whole lives in front of them

I appreciate your point, but it seems like it's based on the premise that how similar people are to you is significant in deciding how tragic their deaths are.

Nigelb

Fishing said:

You don't consider the Swiss answer of holding referenda when a petition with a certain number of valid signatures is sent in. (Except for constitutional changes, where referenda are mandatory). I think that has a lot to be said for it.

Similar systems operate in many US states, mostly in the west.

And for those on this site, think about all the extra betting opportunities such a system would present!

Ballot initiatives in the states have many of the problems Alastair refers to, offering simple answers to couples questions, and referring them to an electorate who are often totally uninformed on the particular issue.
California's Proposition 13 is an early notorious example, rendering the state's property taxes un-reformable for decades. In recent years, a veritable industry seems to have grown up to write innocuous or progressive sounding ballot initiatives, which are often written to have completely opposite effects, usually to the benefit of a particular commercial interest.

Direct democracy works best in relatively small, well educated polities.

TOPPING

Stereotomy said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised that people have not heard of the Marchioness disaster. My memory of it is very clear indeed and I remember it getting huge amounts of coverage - not least because Lawrence Dallaglio's sister was on board.

Are you sure (as in I know his sister was on board but I didn't think he featured at all in the coverage)? Lawrence Dallaglio hadn't even made his first appearance for Wasps yet and was 6 years away from making his international debut.

Over the years I meant.

I remember the Marchioness. The coroner ordered the hands of the bodies to be cut off for some identification reason, without the consent of the relatives, which caused them distress. And there was an unpleasant air of from some of “Who cares? They’re yuppies.” which was in quite as much bad taste as this Grenfell video. They were young Londoners having a great night out who died a horrible death in the dark. It was quite a thing at one point to have parties on boats. Our office had its summer party on one, one year. It happened to people like me, with families and friends and their whole lives in front of them

I appreciate your point, but it seems like it's based on the premise that how similar people are to you is significant in deciding how tragic their deaths are.

But it's the case, always has been. Call it the gravitational model of grief and sympathy.

Cyclefree

Interesting, thanks.

You focus on the referendum understandably. I am doubtful about the use of referenda though since we had one about going in, which raised the same issues re values / technical details, it was in theory reasonable to have one about a possible exit. The problems were that it was done for the wrong reasons - to sort out a Tory party issue - and with insufficient consideration beforehand about the technical issues involved. Plus I think it would be best to have a minimum winning margin to be reached so that if something as significant as this has to be implemented it has to be done when there is a very clear majority for it. The bar should be high.

But we surely have a bigger issue - that a government which many might think of as objectively bad - can be elected on barely a third of the vote. Such a government could make some very fundamental changes without having any sort of popular majority behind it at all. What price democracy then?

Fishing

Another argument against this thread is that it does not analyse why Parliamentarians vote the way they do. They are not disinterested custodians of the public good. In our system, of 650 MPs, at least 100 are on the government payroll and so will be highly likely to back it. Various others may hope for seats in the Lords, bungs for their constituents, concessions on unrelated issues, their sexual proclivities to remain private or whatever. Most of the Opposition will be likely to oppose. The Scots will vote on England-only issues if there are implications for Scotland. Etc, etc, etc.

It is much easier to bribe or threaten or deceive 326 people than 17 million.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/bbcpress/status/1059747497462190080

Fishing

This is a mildly interesting animation of how GDP has changed over the past 50 years:

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/animation-the-worlds-10-largest-economies-by-gdp-1960-today/

Of course, as with any economic data, long footnotes should be appended to it before drawing any inferences.

Nigelb

Fishing said:

Another argument against this thread is that it does not analyse why Parliamentarians vote the way they do. They are not disinterested custodians of the public good. In our system, of 650 MPs, at least 100 are on the government payroll and so will be highly likely to back it. Various others may hope for seats in the Lords, bungs for their constituents, concessions on unrelated issues, their sexual proclivities to remain private or whatever. Most of the Opposition will be likely to oppose. The Scots will vote on England-only issues if there are implications for Scotland. Etc, etc, etc.

It is much easier to bribe or threaten or deceive 326 people than 17 million.

And a lot easier to turf 326 people (whose positions are up for review every five years) out of office, than it might be to do anything about the self-interested misjudgments of 17 million...

Cyclefree

Stereotomy said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised that people have not heard of the Marchioness disaster. My memory of it is very clear indeed and I remember it getting huge amounts of coverage - not least because Lawrence Dallaglio's sister was on board.

Are you sure (as in I know his sister was on board but I didn't think he featured at all in the coverage)? Lawrence Dallaglio hadn't even made his first appearance for Wasps yet and was 6 years away from making his international debut.

Over the years I meant.

I remember the Marchioness. The coroner ordered the hands of the bodies to be cut off for some identification reason, without the consent of the relatives, which caused them distress. And there was an unpleasant air of from some of “Who cares? They’re yuppies.” which was in quite as much bad taste as this Grenfell video. They were young Londoners having a great night out who died a horrible death in the dark. It was quite a thing at one point to have parties on boats. Our office had its summer party on one, one year. It happened to people like me, with families and friends and their whole lives in front of them

I appreciate your point, but it seems like it's based on the premise that how similar people are to you is significant in deciding how tragic their deaths are.

I wasn’t saying that at all. It seemed to me at the time that some people dismissed the pain caused by these deaths because they didn’t like the class of people who died.

If you have any sort of empathy you understand other peoples’ loss regardless of the circumstances. But pretending to a grief you don’t have is pathetic showing off which is disrespectful to those who are really mourning. Over-egging your reaction or dismissing what has happened because of who has died is equally distasteful. The people who died in Grenfell were no more saints or sinners than those who died on the Marchioness or at Hillsborough or Bradford or in many other horrible accidents or incidents. Their deaths are a tragedy for those who loved them and miss them. The rest of us should not seek to appropriate other peoples’ pain for our own motives.

SouthamObserver

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised that people have not heard of the Marchioness disaster. My memory of it is very clear indeed and I remember it getting huge amounts of coverage - not least because Lawrence Dallaglio's sister was on board.

Are you sure (as in I know his sister was on board but I didn't think he featured at all in the coverage)? Lawrence Dallaglio hadn't even made his first appearance for Wasps yet and was 6 years away from making his international debut.

Over the years I meant.

I remember the Marchioness. The coroner ordered the hands of the bodies to be cut off for some identification reason, without the consent of the relatives, which caused them distress. And there was an unpleasant air of from some of “Who cares? They’re yuppies.” which was in quite as much bad taste as this Grenfell video. They were young Londoners having a great night out who died a horrible death in the dark. It was quite a thing at one point to have parties on boats. Our office had its summer party on one, one year. It happened to people like me, with families and friends and their whole lives in front of them

I appreciate your point, but it seems like it's based on the premise that how similar people are to you is significant in deciding how tragic their deaths are.

But it's the case, always has been. Call it the gravitational model of grief and sympathy.

Yep - Kelvin McKenzie did not like Scousers so he felt free to run stories about Liverpool fans robbing and urinating on the dead at Hillsborough.

geoffw

Thanks to AM for this chunky piece, but some points within it are quite contestable.

The Rhodesia/Zimbabwe example is, I think, poorly chosen as that country's immiseration has its origins in deep and ancient tribal divisions, with a democratically imposed dictatorship of the now dominant tribe.

Concordet's Jury Theorem as you describe it is a trivial exercise in elementary statistics, resting on an assumption that there is a correct answer. It is obvious that in the case of the EU referendum, your "correct" answer is not mine - as you point out - and indeed how we proceed does hinge on whether it is to do with values or technical details. Isn't that the precise point on which the country is split?

Nigelb

Nigelb said:

Fishing said:

You don't consider the Swiss answer of holding referenda when a petition with a certain number of valid signatures is sent in. (Except for constitutional changes, where referenda are mandatory). I think that has a lot to be said for it.

Similar systems operate in many US states, mostly in the west.

And for those on this site, think about all the extra betting opportunities such a system would present!

Ballot initiatives in the states have many of the problems Alastair refers to, offering simple answers to couples questions, and referring them to an electorate who are often totally uninformed on the particular issue.
California's Proposition 13 is an early notorious example, rendering the state's property taxes un-reformable for decades. In recent years, a veritable industry seems to have grown up to write innocuous or progressive sounding ballot initiatives, which are often written to have completely opposite effects, usually to the benefit of a particular commercial interest.

Direct democracy works best in relatively small, well educated polities.

Talking of Prop 13, there is (yet another) measure on this year's California ballot to amend it (for the worse):
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/08/editorial-prop-5-worsens-already-broken-state-property-tax-system/

Alanbrooke

using the Who wants to be the Millionaire theory if we'd asked the audience early enough before charging headlong in to the EU , we;d still be in it

that we didnt shows the technocrats werent up to the job

Fishing

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

Fishing said:

You don't consider the Swiss answer of holding referenda when a petition with a certain number of valid signatures is sent in. (Except for constitutional changes, where referenda are mandatory). I think that has a lot to be said for it.

Similar systems operate in many US states, mostly in the west.

And for those on this site, think about all the extra betting opportunities such a system would present!

Ballot initiatives in the states have many of the problems Alastair refers to, offering simple answers to couples questions, and referring them to an electorate who are often totally uninformed on the particular issue.
California's Proposition 13 is an early notorious example, rendering the state's property taxes un-reformable for decades. In recent years, a veritable industry seems to have grown up to write innocuous or progressive sounding ballot initiatives, which are often written to have completely opposite effects, usually to the benefit of a particular commercial interest.

Direct democracy works best in relatively small, well educated polities.

Talking of Prop 13, there is (yet another) measure on this year's California ballot to amend it (for the worse):
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/08/editorial-prop-5-worsens-already-broken-state-property-tax-system/

But Parliamentary systems have plenty of ill-thought-through, archaic or ridiculous laws on the statute books. Just because you dislike one individual result (and your dislike evidently isn't shared by most of those who experience it) doesn't mean that the system is wrong.

currystar

Anyone know why it is ok to burn an effigy of our prime minister at an event attended by thousands. Surely consistency in policing should mean that the organisers should be arrested.

Richard_Nabavi

currystar said:

Anyone know why it is ok to burn an effigy of our prime minister at an event attended by thousands. Surely consistency in policing should mean that the organisers should be arrested.

You don't mess with Lewes Bonfire.

williamglenn

Alanbrooke said:

using the Who wants to be the Millionaire theory if we'd asked the audience early enough before charging headlong in to the EU , we;d still be in it

that we didnt shows the technocrats werent up to the job

We are still in it, so you should reserve judgement on the technocrats.

Theuniondivvie

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised that people have not heard of the Marchioness disaster. My memory of it is very clear indeed and I remember it getting huge amounts of coverage - not least because Lawrence Dallaglio's sister was on board.

Are you sure (as in I know his sister was on board but I didn't think he featured at all in the coverage)? Lawrence Dallaglio hadn't even made his first appearance for Wasps yet and was 6 years away from making his international debut.

Over the years I meant.

I remember the Marchioness. The coroner ordered the hands of the bodies to be cut off for some identification reason, without the consent of the relatives, which caused them distress. And there was an unpleasant air of from some of “Who cares? They’re yuppies.” which was in quite as much bad taste as this Grenfell video. They were young Londoners having a great night out who died a horrible death in the dark. It was quite a thing at one point to have parties on boats. Our office had its summer party on one, one year. It happened to people like me, with families and friends and their whole lives in front of them

I appreciate your point, but it seems like it's based on the premise that how similar people are to you is significant in deciding how tragic their deaths are.

But it's the case, always has been. Call it the gravitational model of grief and sympathy.

Not much point then in complaining about the vast majority of the population not caring much about people that weren't similar to them.

In fact even in the distant provinces I remember loads of coverage about The Marchioness with emphasis on the horror of the deaths. Possibly psychobollox, but I suspect it might have chimed with the zeitgeist of the Thatcher miracle becoming somewhat curdled.

OldKingCole

currystar said:

Anyone know why it is ok to burn an effigy of our prime minister at an event attended by thousands. Surely consistency in policing should mean that the organisers should be arrested.

Can’t recall an effigy of May, although I’m pretty sure there was one of Thatcher. There was one of Johnson, in deepest Tory Kent, too.

currystar

OldKingCole said:

currystar said:

Anyone know why it is ok to burn an effigy of our prime minister at an event attended by thousands. Surely consistency in policing should mean that the organisers should be arrested.

Can’t recall an effigy of May, although I’m pretty sure there was one of Thatcher. There was one of Johnson, in deepest Tory Kent, too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46103733

Benpointer

Fishing said:

This is a mildly interesting animation of how GDP has changed over the past 50 years:

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/animation-the-worlds-10-largest-economies-by-gdp-1960-today/

Of course, as with any economic data, long footnotes should be appended to it before drawing any inferences.

That's a great visualisation - really love it!

Stark_Dawning

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised that people have not heard of the Marchioness disaster. My memory of it is very clear indeed and I remember it getting huge amounts of coverage - not least because Lawrence Dallaglio's sister was on board.

Are you sure (as in I know his sister was on board but I didn't think he featured at all in the coverage)? Lawrence Dallaglio hadn't even made his first appearance for Wasps yet and was 6 years away from making his international debut.

Over the years I meant.

I remember the Marchioness. The coroner ordered the hands of the bodies to be cut off for some identification reason, without the consent of the relatives, which caused them distress. And there was an unpleasant air of from some of “Who cares? They’re yuppies.” which was in quite as much bad taste as this Grenfell video. They were young Londoners having a great night out who died a horrible death in the dark. It was quite a thing at one point to have parties on boats. Our office had its summer party on one, one year. It happened to people like me, with families and friends and their whole lives in front of them

I appreciate your point, but it seems like it's based on the premise that how similar people are to you is significant in deciding how tragic their deaths are.

But it's the case, always has been. Call it the gravitational model of grief and sympathy.

Yep - Kelvin McKenzie did not like Scousers so he felt free to run stories about Liverpool fans robbing and urinating on the dead at Hillsborough.

With Hillsborough we saw a similar dynamic to that which we had with Grenfell: elements of the Left sought to weaponize them to attack Thatcherism/Austerity; then, not wishing to be outdone, the Right attempted to trivialise the tragedy by portraying the victims as drunken thieving Scousers/welfare scrounging immigrants. Deplorable behaviour all round really.

YBarddCwsc

I think most proponents of liberal democracy (e.g. EM Forster) envisage the masses being guided by an intellectual or spiritual elite (or aristocracy, to use Forster's word).

If the crowd makes the wrong decision, then it is the elite's fault for not explaining or guiding the masses properly.

Alanbrooke

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

using the Who wants to be the Millionaire theory if we'd asked the audience early enough before charging headlong in to the EU , we;d still be in it

that we didnt shows the technocrats werent up to the job

We are still in it, so you should reserve judgement on the technocrats.

tedious, PBers dont need your approval for posts

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/mortenmorland/status/1059723259892113408

GIN1138

currystar said:

Anyone know why it is ok to burn an effigy of our prime minister at an event attended by thousands. Surely consistency in policing should mean that the organisers should be arrested.

Because they're evil Tories?

geoffw

Morten Morland is brilliant.

Richard_Nabavi

GIN1138 said:

currystar said:

Anyone know why it is ok to burn an effigy of our prime minister at an event attended by thousands. Surely consistency in policing should mean that the organisers should be arrested.

Because they're evil Tories?

No, Lewes is an equal-opportunity burner of effigies:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29915270

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29929438

Benpointer

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

using the Who wants to be the Millionaire theory if we'd asked the audience early enough before charging headlong in to the EU , we;d still be in it

that we didnt shows the technocrats werent up to the job

We are still in it, so you should reserve judgement on the technocrats.

tedious, PBers dont need your approval for posts

tetchy, why bother to post if you don't want to hear alternative views?

Alanbrooke

Benpointer said:

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

using the Who wants to be the Millionaire theory if we'd asked the audience early enough before charging headlong in to the EU , we;d still be in it

that we didnt shows the technocrats werent up to the job

We are still in it, so you should reserve judgement on the technocrats.

tedious, PBers dont need your approval for posts

tetchy, why bother to post if you don't want to hear alternative views?

Im quite happy to hear other posts, its closing down debate I object to

Theuniondivvie

Lol!

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1059747405309136896

FeersumEnjineeya

OldKingCole said:

currystar said:

Anyone know why it is ok to burn an effigy of our prime minister at an event attended by thousands. Surely consistency in policing should mean that the organisers should be arrested.

Can’t recall an effigy of May, although I’m pretty sure there was one of Thatcher. There was one of Johnson, in deepest Tory Kent, too.

Burning an effigy of a politician isn't quite the same as burning an effigy of people who actually burned, though! I suppose a similar offence (or not) would be laughter and joking accompanying a ritual sinking of a model boat with Marchioness written on the side and filled with little paper white people. I don't recollect anything like that happening though.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1059756222486925313

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1059756520647389184

TOPPING

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised that people have not heard of the Marchioness disaster. My memory of it is very clear indeed and I remember it getting huge amounts of coverage - not least because Lawrence Dallaglio's sister was on board.

Are you sure (as in I know his sister was on board but I didn't think he featured at all in the coverage)? Lawrence Dallaglio hadn't even made his first appearance for Wasps yet and was 6 years away from making his international debut.

Over the years I meant.

I remember the Marchioness. The coroner ordered the hands of the bodies to be cut off for some identification reason, without the consent of the relatives, which caused them distress. And there was an unpleasant air of from some of “Who cares? They’re yuppies.” which was in quite as much bad taste as this Grenfell video. They were young Londoners having a great night out who died a horrible death in the dark. It was quite a thing at one point to have parties on boats. Our office had its summer party on one, one year. It happened to people like me, with families and friends and their whole lives in front of them

I appreciate your point, but it seems like it's based on the premise that how similar people are to you is significant in deciding how tragic their deaths are.

But it's the case, always has been. Call it the gravitational model of grief and sympathy.

Not much point then in complaining about the vast majority of the population not caring much about people that weren't similar to them.

In fact even in the distant provinces I remember loads of coverage about The Marchioness with emphasis on the horror of the deaths. Possibly psychobollox, but I suspect it might have chimed with the zeitgeist of the Thatcher miracle becoming somewhat curdled.

I'm not complaining about anything. I am just explaining the dynamic of how sympathy/grief works. If it's your neighbour/brother/work colleague you care a lot more than if it was, say, these people. Tragic as that case appears to be. But I'm sure you were aware of it?

topherdawson

Excellent post. Modern use of big data and tailored messages to different sectors on social media have brought new ways for unscrupulous people with a lot of money to influence voters.

This link
https://twitter.com/nealb2010/status/1059068463933743104?s=21&fbclid=IwAR3dkNaQh59O-OKqybO7R1jqLNFZlIliuBg64wJDzmbmjlhT_iZAjpQX3FA
shows how Aaron Banks spent money sending adverts of dubious truthfulness to Facebook users.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1059757208991358976

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/jonwalker121/status/1059757778628214786

GIN1138

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1059757208991358976

I actually had no idea Arron Banks owned an insurance company until a few days ago.

Bet these past few days have been great publicity for his business.

logical_song

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1059757208991358976

I actually had no idea Arron Banks owned an insurance company until a few days ago.

Bet these past few days have been great publicity for his business.

Only if all publicity is good publicity.

currystar

FeersumEnjineeya said:

OldKingCole said:

currystar said:

Anyone know why it is ok to burn an effigy of our prime minister at an event attended by thousands. Surely consistency in policing should mean that the organisers should be arrested.

Can’t recall an effigy of May, although I’m pretty sure there was one of Thatcher. There was one of Johnson, in deepest Tory Kent, too.

Burning an effigy of a politician isn't quite the same as burning an effigy of people who actually burned, though! I suppose a similar offence (or not) would be laughter and joking accompanying a ritual sinking of a model boat with Marchioness written on the side and filled with little paper white people. I don't recollect anything like that happening though.

In my view they are both in terrible taste but I cant see a criminal offence.

kjohnw

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1059757208991358976

Of course the government remain leaflet sent to every uk household before the referendum was not cheating........

Richard_Nabavi

topherdawson said:

Excellent post. Modern use of big data and tailored messages to different sectors on social media have brought new ways for unscrupulous people with a lot of money to influence voters.

This link
https://twitter.com/nealb2010/status/1059068463933743104?s=21&fbclid=IwAR3dkNaQh59O-OKqybO7R1jqLNFZlIliuBg64wJDzmbmjlhT_iZAjpQX3FA
shows how Aaron Banks spent money sending adverts of dubious truthfulness to Facebook users.

That is a very good thread indeed - well worth looking at. A few observations:

1. He's being a bit dishonest himself by claiming that the alleged £675K overspend was crucial to these ads appearing. Even it it was illegal (and remember, the Electoral Commission themselves advised that it was OK), the extra money passed via BeLeave was a small part of the total.

2. It was an impressive piece of targeting by Vote Leave, but is it any different in principle to placing targeted ads in other media?

3. At a time of rapid technological change, the rules haven't caught up with the new options open to campaigns. We need a serious think about what exactly is and is not going to be allowed in this brave new world, and I don't think we've yet teased it out The Information Commissioner is launching a consultation on this, which will be interesting to follow.

4. Who in their right mind would use Facebook?

Theuniondivvie

TOPPING said:

I'm not complaining about anything. I am just explaining the dynamic of how sympathy/grief works. If it's your neighbour/brother/work colleague you care a lot more than if it was, say, these people. Tragic as that case appears to be. But I'm sure you were aware of it?

Actually 'knowing' people who've died tragically is not the same as abstract sympathy for people who are ether similar or dissimilar to you, an entirely different point really.

I'm not sure if the nature of the sympathy I felt for the victims of, say, the runaway Glasgow cleansing truck is greatly different from that which I feel for the Marseille dead, except that the media attached names, faces and lives to the former. In any case my sympathy makes not a bawhair's difference to the dead and their families in either situation.

geoffw

Theuniondivvie said:

Lol!

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1059747405309136896

Yeah, lol.

Andrew

topherdawson said:

Excellent post. Modern use of big data and tailored messages to different sectors on social media have brought new ways for unscrupulous people with a lot of money to influence voters.

There's quite some doubt over the actual effectiveness of much of this though. Everyone involved, whether it's facebook/google or the ad agencies have self-interest in exaggerating its potency, and every so often you get stories like this:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lawsuit-facebook-lied-about-video-metrics-misled-advertisers

Scott_P

Richard_Nabavi said:

2. It was an impressive piece of targeting by Vote Leave, but is it any different in principle to placing targeted ads in other media?

I think yes, because it not only determined who would see the ads, it explicitly excluded other people from seeing them.

If these ads had been on the side of a bus (for example) I think there might have been more examination and condemnation before now.

Sunil_Prasannan

Would Alastair really prefer to live in a dictatorship?

Dura_Ace

currystar said:

Anyone know why it is ok to burn an effigy of our prime minister at an event attended by thousands. Surely consistency in policing should mean that the organisers should be arrested.

PM = position of vast privilege and power richly deserving of the most rank obloquy imaginable.

Grenfell = poor, disadvantaged and killed by greed.

Scott_P

Andrew said:

There's quite some doubt over the actual effectiveness of much of this though. Everyone involved, whether it's facebook/google or the ad agencies have self-interest in exaggerating its potency

Except in this case Brexiteers have gone out of their way to claim it was totally ineffective

GIN1138

Have been dying to know for months but have been too afraid to ask - What does #FBPE stand for?

TOPPING

Dura_Ace said:

currystar said:

Anyone know why it is ok to burn an effigy of our prime minister at an event attended by thousands. Surely consistency in policing should mean that the organisers should be arrested.

PM = position of vast privilege and power richly deserving of the most rank obloquy imaginable.

Grenfell = poor, disadvantaged and killed by greed.

and, arguably, interesting decision-making by the emergency services.

kjohnw

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1059757208991358976

These were sent in the August after the referendum according to bbc

TOPPING

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

TheWhiteRabbit

GIN1138 said:

Have been dying to know for months but have been too afraid to ask - What does #FBPE stand for?

Follow Back Pro-Europe, it's inviting the reader of a tweet to follow the author if they are equally minded...

Andy_Cooke

Richard_Nabavi said:

topherdawson said:

Excellent post. Modern use of big data and tailored messages to different sectors on social media have brought new ways for unscrupulous people with a lot of money to influence voters.

This link
https://twitter.com/nealb2010/status/1059068463933743104?s=21&fbclid=IwAR3dkNaQh59O-OKqybO7R1jqLNFZlIliuBg64wJDzmbmjlhT_iZAjpQX3FA
shows how Aaron Banks spent money sending adverts of dubious truthfulness to Facebook users.

That is a very good thread indeed - well worth looking at. A few observations:

1. He's being a bit dishonest himself by claiming that the alleged £675K overspend was crucial to these ads appearing. Even it it was illegal (and remember, the Electoral Commission themselves advised that it was OK), the extra money passed via BeLeave was a small part of the total.

2. It was an impressive piece of targeting by Vote Leave, but is it any different in principle to placing targeted ads in other media?

3. At a time of rapid technological change, the rules haven't caught up with the new options open to campaigns. We need a serious think about what exactly is and is not going to be allowed in this brave new world, and I don't think we've yet teased it out The Information Commissioner is launching a consultation on this, which will be interesting to follow.

4. Who in their right mind would use Facebook?

1 - Yup. What about all the rest of the money and its effect? (Albeit there might be an argument that the amount of swing needed was small and thus the illegal overspend may well have been the element that pushed it over the top)
2,3 - Linked. Agreed - our earlier paradigm for a non-social-media world is painfully out of place now. We have, to steal a phrase, analogue policies in a digital world.
4 - 42.3 million adults in the UK (20.1 million males 18 and over; 22.2 million females of 18 and over. https://www.statista.com/statistics/507417/number-of-facebook-users-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-age-and-gender/

It's the closest thing that's ever existed to a universal platform that can enter damn near everyone's world and tends to be trusted. As if a single, trusted newspaper had ever been subscribed to by the entire population, delivered personally, and tailored to themselves.

Richard_Nabavi

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

2. It was an impressive piece of targeting by Vote Leave, but is it any different in principle to placing targeted ads in other media?

I think yes, because it not only determined who would see the ads, it explicitly excluded other people from seeing them.

If these ads had been on the side of a bus (for example) I think there might have been more examination and condemnation before now.

Not sure that one flies. The reprehensible claims about Turkey were widely used and were criticised, but the problem is that criticising them gives them even more publicity. Similarly the £350m a week: the bogus figure was a deliberate provocation, trying to force the Remain side into arguing that it was 'only' £250m a week, thereby promoting the message even more.

RobinWiggs

Thanks Alistair for one of the very best threads on PBC for a long while (and the competition is stiff).

GIN1138

TheWhiteRabbit said:

GIN1138 said:

Have been dying to know for months but have been too afraid to ask - What does #FBPE stand for?

Follow Back Pro-Europe, it's inviting the reader of a tweet to follow the author if they are equally minded...

Oh. Thank you.

Tim_B

Polls open in 9 states - VT, ME, NH, NY, NJ, CT, VA, IN, KY

-and so it begins

CarlottaVance

Stereotomy said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised that people have not heard of the Marchioness disaster. My memory of it is very clear indeed and I remember it getting huge amounts of coverage - not least because Lawrence Dallaglio's sister was on board.

Are you sure (as in I know his sister was on board but I didn't think he featured at all in the coverage)? Lawrence Dallaglio hadn't even made his first appearance for Wasps yet and was 6 years away from making his international debut.

Over the years I meant.

I remember the Marchioness. The coroner ordered the hands of the bodies to be cut off for some identification reason, without the consent of the relatives, which caused them distress. And there was an unpleasant air of from some of “Who cares? They’re yuppies.” which was in quite as much bad taste as this Grenfell video. They were young Londoners having a great night out who died a horrible death in the dark. It was quite a thing at one point to have parties on boats. Our office had its summer party on one, one year. It happened to people like me, with families and friends and their whole lives in front of them

I appreciate your point, but it seems like it's based on the premise that how similar people are to you is significant in deciding how tragic their deaths are.

It’s also how we construct “myths” around random acts of awfulness to draw meaning from them. The media were quick to paint “poor Grenfell residents dying in squalor surrounded by multi millionaires” - a narrative that upset many a survivor who weren’t poor and liked their flat, thank you very much.

Similarly the Marchioness tragedy was quickly written up as “Rich drunk yuppies” undeserving of sympathy.

Richard_Nabavi

On the subject of the use of data in elections, this is worth following:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2018/nov/06/information-commissioner-to-levy-fines-against-leave-eu-live

Scott_P

Richard_Nabavi said:

Not sure that one flies. The reprehensible claims about Turkey were widely used and were criticised, but the problem is that criticising them gives them even more publicity. Similarly the £350m a week: the bogus figure was a deliberate provocation, trying to force the Remain side into arguing that it was 'only' £250m a week, thereby promoting the message even more.

They didn't put this on a poster

https://twitter.com/Nealb2010/status/1059078388743393282

GIN1138

Richard_Nabavi said:

On the subject of the use of data in elections, this is worth following:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2018/nov/06/information-commissioner-to-levy-fines-against-leave-eu-live

Banks could find £135,000 down the back of his sofa...

Scott_P

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Then why are Brexiteers so scared of it.

You are going to win again. Even bigger! You should be campaigning hard to make it happen, right?

What's that smell?

williamglenn

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Another Leave victory is impossible because the Leave presented in 2016 no longer exists. It won't be possible to run a populist campaign in favour of the withdrawal agreement - all they can achieve is suppressing the Leave vote, not turning it out.

Richard_Nabavi

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Not sure that one flies. The reprehensible claims about Turkey were widely used and were criticised, but the problem is that criticising them gives them even more publicity. Similarly the £350m a week: the bogus figure was a deliberate provocation, trying to force the Remain side into arguing that it was 'only' £250m a week, thereby promoting the message even more.

They didn't put this on a poster

https://twitter.com/Nealb2010/status/1059078388743393282

Sure, but they could have run something similar in magazines or on websites likely to be read by young Corbyn supporters, It's hardly the Leave campaign's fault that Corbyn and Seumas Milne were on their side.

Dura_Ace

Andy_Cooke said:

It's the closest thing that's ever existed to a universal platform that can enter damn near everyone's world and tends to be trusted. As if a single, trusted newspaper had ever been subscribed to by the entire population, delivered personally, and tailored to themselves.

This is why Corbo's idea of a publicly owned, ad free social media platform is such a valuable concept.

TheWhiteRabbit

Dura_Ace said:

Andy_Cooke said:

It's the closest thing that's ever existed to a universal platform that can enter damn near everyone's world and tends to be trusted. As if a single, trusted newspaper had ever been subscribed to by the entire population, delivered personally, and tailored to themselves.

This is why Corbo's idea of a publicly owned, ad free social media platform is such a valuable concept.

Facebook is dying, though.

TOPPING

Scott_P said:

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Then why are Brexiteers so scared of it.

You are going to win again. Even bigger! You should be campaigning hard to make it happen, right?

What's that smell?

Because we had the vote and we need to leave. There is no political party with second referendum in its manifesto or even which says it supports one. The voters must be given a choice to have a second referendum by voting for a party which promises one in its manifesto.

That's the politics we've got.

williamglenn

TOPPING said:

Scott_P said:

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Then why are Brexiteers so scared of it.

You are going to win again. Even bigger! You should be campaigning hard to make it happen, right?

What's that smell?

Because we had the vote and we need to leave. There is no political party with second referendum in its manifesto or even which says it supports one. The voters must be given a choice to have a second referendum by voting for a party which promises one in its manifesto.

That's the politics we've got.

Which party had a referendum on AV in its manifesto?

Richard_Nabavi

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Another Leave victory is impossible because the Leave presented in 2016 no longer exists. It won't be possible to run a populist campaign in favour of the withdrawal agreement - all they can achieve is suppressing the Leave vote, not turning it out.

Nah, Cummings Mk 2 could easily run a very effective campaign on the theme of 'Which bit of "Leave the EU" does the elite not understand?'

My take is that the outcome of a putative second people's vote is completely unpredictable. It could go either way, depending on who is campaigning and how effectively. In a forced choice I'd say it was slightly more likely to give another Leave victory, simply because people don't like being patronised, and also because the option of Remaining as chastened malcontents and under worse terms than before isn't attractive anyway.

RoyalBlue

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Another Leave victory is impossible because the Leave presented in 2016 no longer exists. It won't be possible to run a populist campaign in favour of the withdrawal agreement - all they can achieve is suppressing the Leave vote, not turning it out.

A second vote would have little to do with the merits of leaving the EU.

TOPPING gets it exactly right when he said ‘actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves’. That would be the dynamic. It might be better for Leave if they didn’t campaign.

TOPPING

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Scott_P said:

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Then why are Brexiteers so scared of it.

You are going to win again. Even bigger! You should be campaigning hard to make it happen, right?

What's that smell?

Because we had the vote and we need to leave. There is no political party with second referendum in its manifesto or even which says it supports one. The voters must be given a choice to have a second referendum by voting for a party which promises one in its manifesto.

That's the politics we've got.

Which party had a referendum on AV in its manifesto?

Which party has even intimated that they would want a second referendum? Until Labour gets off the fence the two parties are officially against.

Edit: apart from the LDs and, sorry to say, they don't really count atm.

GIN1138

Scott_P said:

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Then why are Brexiteers so scared of it.

You are going to win again. Even bigger! You should be campaigning hard to make it happen, right?

What's that smell?

Because while you can suspect what the outcome of a poll would be you can never be 100% certain how a vote is going to go (ask David Cameron who thought Remain had it in the bag... Until it didn't... And Theresa May who blew a 20% polling lead in four weeks)

So why risk a second vote when Leave already have a clear result to work with?

And we had a vote just two years ago. Based on the first EU referendum there shouldn't be another one for at least 40 years?

And there's a strong suspicion that even if Leave did win again it wouldn't shut Remainer's up... I think Blair and Bad Al have both confirmed that if Leave won again they'd still go on campaigning to stop Brexit...

AllyPally_Rob

I heard some of Justin Webb's coverage of the US Midterms on Radio 4 this morning and over the last week, and it was just atrocious frankly.

He seemed to spend his entire time interviewing white rural voters in Pennsylvania, and been shocked that they were by enlarge republican voters. It doesn't take a particularly deep knowledge of American politics to know that this voter demographic has been GOP leaning for over 20 years now.

More than anything else it seemed to be a prime example of a reporter already having a view on a story, then going out to find people who confirm that view.

Makes you miss the days of Jim Naughtie on Today.

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Another Leave victory is impossible because the Leave presented in 2016 no longer exists. It won't be possible to run a populist campaign in favour of the withdrawal agreement - all they can achieve is suppressing the Leave vote, not turning it out.

Nah, Cummings Mk 2 could easily run a very effective campaign on the theme of 'Which bit of "Leave the EU" does the elite not understand?'

My take is that the outcome of a putative second people's vote is completely unpredictable. It could go either way, depending on who is campaign and how effectively. In a forced choice I'd say it was slightly more likely to give another Leave victory, simply because people don't like being patronised, and also because the option of Remaining as chastened malcontents and under worse terms than before isn't attractive anyway.

If you have two choices on the ballot:

- Leave and ratify May's deal
- Remain and revoke Article 50 notification

How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.

Andy_Cooke

Dura_Ace said:

Andy_Cooke said:

It's the closest thing that's ever existed to a universal platform that can enter damn near everyone's world and tends to be trusted. As if a single, trusted newspaper had ever been subscribed to by the entire population, delivered personally, and tailored to themselves.

This is why Corbo's idea of a publicly owned, ad free social media platform is such a valuable concept.

I think I might more greatly fear the concept of a similar platform controlled by the Government, providing whatever messages the Government most approve of.

JosiasJessop

Dura_Ace said:

Andy_Cooke said:

It's the closest thing that's ever existed to a universal platform that can enter damn near everyone's world and tends to be trusted. As if a single, trusted newspaper had ever been subscribed to by the entire population, delivered personally, and tailored to themselves.

This is why Corbo's idea of a publicly owned, ad free social media platform is such a valuable concept.

Also unachievable IMO without severely curtailing or banning (yeah, right), the existing private providers. Heck, it's a market that even a behemoth such as Google has found hard to tackle.

The BBC became preeminent by being the first in the country, and competitors being strictly limited by the government.

It's alright having a state-owned, ad-free social media platform. Getting people to use it is a very different matter.

Scott_P

TOPPING said:

Because we had the vote and we need to leave. There is no political party with second referendum in its manifesto or even which says it supports one. The voters must be given a choice to have a second referendum by voting for a party which promises one in its manifesto.

That's the politics we've got.

We are leaving.

But we can have another vote.

That's the politics we've got.

Why are you so scared?

williamglenn

TOPPING said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Scott_P said:

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Then why are Brexiteers so scared of it.

You are going to win again. Even bigger! You should be campaigning hard to make it happen, right?

What's that smell?

Because we had the vote and we need to leave. There is no political party with second referendum in its manifesto or even which says it supports one. The voters must be given a choice to have a second referendum by voting for a party which promises one in its manifesto.

That's the politics we've got.

Which party had a referendum on AV in its manifesto?

Which party has even intimated that they would want a second referendum?

Theresa May has denied it. That's as good as making it an official policy.

Richard_Nabavi

AllyPally_Rob said:

I heard some of Justin Webb's coverage of the US Midterms on Radio 4 this morning and over the last week, and it was just atrocious frankly.

He seemed to spend his entire time interviewing white rural voters in Pennsylvania, and been shocked that they were by enlarge republican voters. It doesn't take a particularly deep knowledge of American politics to know that this voter demographic has been GOP leaning for over 20 years now.

More than anything else it seemed to be a prime example of a reporter already having a view on a story, then going out to find people who confirm that view.

Makes you miss the days of Jim Naughtie on Today.

The utter astonishment of the Beeb on politics under Trump is one of the great amusements of broadcasting - much funnier than their comedy programmes!

Scott_P

GIN1138 said:

And there's a strong suspicion that even if Leave did win again it wouldn't shut Remainer's up... I think Blair and Bad Al have both confirmed that if Leave won again they'd still go on campaigning to stop Brexit...

Just like the headbangers didn't shut up for 40 years...

you have no problem with that,

RoyalBlue

Scott_P said:

TOPPING said:

Because we had the vote and we need to leave. There is no political party with second referendum in its manifesto or even which says it supports one. The voters must be given a choice to have a second referendum by voting for a party which promises one in its manifesto.

That's the politics we've got.

We are leaving.

But we can have another vote.

That's the politics we've got.

Why are you so scared?

He’s not scared. He voted Remain. He’s also capable of empathising with those who didn’t vote the same way as him.

Continuity Remain seem to think that in a second referendum the public will see sense, as defined by them. They have learnt absolutely nothing from the first referendum.

Scott_P

RoyalBlue said:

Continuity Remain seem to think that in a second referendum the public will see sense, as defined by them. They have learnt absolutely nothing from the first referendum.

Link?

Anyway, why don't we find out? We could ask the people?

Just need a catchy name...

Philip_Thompson

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

And there's a strong suspicion that even if Leave did win again it wouldn't shut Remainer's up... I think Blair and Bad Al have both confirmed that if Leave won again they'd still go on campaigning to stop Brexit...

Just like the headbangers didn't shut up for 40 years...

you have no problem with that,

Yes they did. Name one headbanger from 1975 that was still headbanging in 2016 and hadn't stopped in between. The closest could have been Corbyn but even he flipped. The people pushing to leave in 2016 were either not prominent or had a different position 41 years earlier.

edmundintokyo

On topic, there's potentially a neat answer to this conundrum which is that you trust the voters to know when you should trust the voters, but you don't actually demand that they answer personally unless they want to. That's how Liquid Democracy works: Voters can vote on everything themselves if they want to, but if they prefer they can just delegate their votes to whoever they like.

In theory they could get the same effect with a referendum by following the advice of somebody they think is sensible, but in practice I think it's a bit different, since a referendum basically asks you to make your own mind up, and since the voters don't get many opportunities to weigh in, they inevitably use it as a proxy for other stuff they're grumpy about.

GIN1138

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

And there's a strong suspicion that even if Leave did win again it wouldn't shut Remainer's up... I think Blair and Bad Al have both confirmed that if Leave won again they'd still go on campaigning to stop Brexit...

Just like the headbangers didn't shut up for 40 years...

you have no problem with that,

Didn't get them anywhere for 40 years though did it?

And really the anti-EU movement didn't go "mainstream" until Maastricht...

Richard_Nabavi

williamglenn said:

If you have two choices on the ballot:

- Leave and ratify May's deal
- Remain and revoke Article 50 notification

How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.

The second option is really difficult. It would be 'Ask the other 27 countries if we may revoke Article 50, and hope that if they say yes they give us a deal which isn't too much worse than what we had before.' Bear in mind that the EU show no signs of making any generous offers - such as going back to the status quo ante including the Cameron renegotiation - and it is clear that they won't. They have three reasons to be awkward:

1. In this scenario we'd be suing for peace on any terms, so they'd extract their pound of flesh.

2. They wouldn't want to establish a precedent that errant states can invoke Article 50 without ill effects.

3. They'd want to lock us irrevocably in the The Project so that they don't have a rerun of Brexit in a few years' time.

Even more so, they wouldn't agree terms in advance. The 'Remain' option would (ironically) be the leap in the dark in this scenario.

TGOHF

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Another Leave victory is impossible because the Leave presented in 2016 no longer exists. It won't be possible to run a populist campaign in favour of the withdrawal agreement - all they can achieve is suppressing the Leave vote, not turning it out.

Nah, Cummings Mk 2 could easily run a very effective campaign on the theme of 'Which bit of "Leave the EU" does the elite not understand?'

My take is that the outcome of a putative second people's vote is completely unpredictable. It could go either way, depending on who is campaign and how effectively. In a forced choice I'd say it was slightly more likely to give another Leave victory, simply because people don't like being patronised, and also because the option of Remaining as chastened malcontents and under worse terms than before isn't attractive anyway.

If you have two choices on the ballot:

- Leave and ratify May's deal
- Remain and revoke Article 50 notification

How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.

That wouldn't be a referendum that solved anything much as it is far too narrow and ignores that a large % of the voters want "neither of the above".

The roots of this go back to a two party system where neither could make a positive case for the EU whilst both signed us up for ever more closer union. The voters were taken for fools and offered no real alternative. A sham referendum will put us back in 2015 unstable mode.

AllyPally_Rob

Richard_Nabavi said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

I heard some of Justin Webb's coverage of the US Midterms on Radio 4 this morning and over the last week, and it was just atrocious frankly.

He seemed to spend his entire time interviewing white rural voters in Pennsylvania, and been shocked that they were by enlarge republican voters. It doesn't take a particularly deep knowledge of American politics to know that this voter demographic has been GOP leaning for over 20 years now.

More than anything else it seemed to be a prime example of a reporter already having a view on a story, then going out to find people who confirm that view.

Makes you miss the days of Jim Naughtie on Today.

The utter astonishment of the Beeb on politics under Trump is one of the great amusements of broadcasting - much funnier than their comedy programmes!

A 5 minute interview with Larry Sabato would've been more informative than all of Today's entire coverage.

He was interviewing voters in Bucks county outside Philadelphia this morning, and the narrative suggested that it'd swung strongly towards Trump. When I checked the voting data it had in fact been won by Hillary, by a simialr margin to Obama and every democrat since her husband first won in 92. Narrative trumping fact.

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

If you have two choices on the ballot:

- Leave and ratify May's deal
- Remain and revoke Article 50 notification

How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.

The second option is really difficult. It would be 'Ask the other 27 countries if we may revoke Article 50, and hope that if they say yes they give us a deal which isn't too much worse than what we had before.' Bear in mind that the EU show no signs of making any generous offers - such as going back to the status quo ante including the Cameron renegotiation - and it is clear that they won't. They have three reasons to be awkward:

1. In this scenario we'd be suing for peace on any terms, so they's extract their pound of flesh.

2. They wouldn't want to establish a precedent that errant states can invoke Article 50 without ill effects.

3. They'd want to lock us irrevocably in the The Project so that they don't have a rerun of Brexit in a few years' time.

Even more so, they wouldn't agree terms in advance. The 'Remain' option would (ironically) be the leap in the dark in this scenario.

Absolute rubbish. Cameron's deal would be dead, but so what?

Scott_P

So the consensus from the Brexiteers is

1. they would win a rerun handily
2. Remainers who carried on campaigning would be irrelevant

So why are they terrified of a vote?

williamglenn

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

On this second referendum lark.

This has got to be the #1 all-time top of the list beware what you wish for situation.

Channel 4 bollocks poll aside it is absolutely none too clear that Remain would win a second vote. Too many people think that people will see "sense" and come round to the logical position.

I mean I think that every GE and the bastard Labour Party still manages to get millions upon millions of votes.

Add in the patronising, don't you understand element that would undoubtedly be present in a second campaign resulting in an actually you lot of toffs can go f&ck yourselves and IMO another Leave victory is all but a certainty.

Another Leave victory is impossible because the Leave presented in 2016 no longer exists. It won't be possible to run a populist campaign in favour of the withdrawal agreement - all they can achieve is suppressing the Leave vote, not turning it out.

Nah, Cummings Mk 2 could easily run a very effective campaign on the theme of 'Which bit of "Leave the EU" does the elite not understand?'

My take is that the outcome of a putative second people's vote is completely unpredictable. It could go either way, depending on who is campaign and how effectively. In a forced choice I'd say it was slightly more likely to give another Leave victory, simply because people don't like being patronised, and also because the option of Remaining as chastened malcontents and under worse terms than before isn't attractive anyway.

If you have two choices on the ballot:

- Leave and ratify May's deal
- Remain and revoke Article 50 notification

How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.

That wouldn't be a referendum that solved anything much as it is far too narrow and ignores that a large % of the voters want "neither of the above".

The roots of this go back to a two party system where neither could make a positive case for the EU whilst both signed us up for ever more closer union. The voters were taken for fools and offered no real alternative. A sham referendum will put us back in 2015 unstable mode.

The previous referendum was a choice between Cameron's deal and Leave. A large number of voters wanted neither of the above.

TOPPING

Scott_P said:

RoyalBlue said:

Continuity Remain seem to think that in a second referendum the public will see sense, as defined by them. They have learnt absolutely nothing from the first referendum.

Link?

Anyway, why don't we find out? We could ask the people?

Just need a catchy name...

We could definitely ask the people but not if only a few thousand people want to ask them.

Let a political party put it in their manifesto and then the people can vote on that.

Philip_Thompson

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

If you have two choices on the ballot:

- Leave and ratify May's deal
- Remain and revoke Article 50 notification

How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.

The second option is really difficult. It would be 'Ask the other 27 countries if we may revoke Article 50, and hope that if they say yes they give us a deal which isn't too much worse than what we had before.' Bear in mind that the EU show no signs of making any generous offers - such as going back to the status quo ante including the Cameron renegotiation - and it is clear that they won't. They have three reasons to be awkward:

1. In this scenario we'd be suing for peace on any terms, so they'd extract their pound of flesh.

2. They wouldn't want to establish a precedent that errant states can invoke Article 50 without ill effects.

3. They'd want to lock us irrevocably in the The Project so that they don't have a rerun of Brexit in a few years' time.

Even more so, they wouldn't agree terms in advance. The 'Remain' option would (ironically) be the leap in the dark in this scenario.

1 and 2 counteract 3. If they get their pound of flesh, and they absolutely would, that could be a Versailles style agreement that then contributes towards a rerun.

At the very least we would lose the rebate. In which case the £350mn a week figure is 100% accurate.

TGOHF

Scott_P said:

So the consensus from the Brexiteers is

1. they would win a rerun handily
2. Remainers who carried on campaigning would be irrelevant

So why are they terrified of a vote?

What is the question of the ballot Scott ?

"May's deal vs WTO no deal and £39Bn "would be a binary question.

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

If you have two choices on the ballot:

- Leave and ratify May's deal
- Remain and revoke Article 50 notification

How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.

The second option is really difficult. It would be 'Ask the other 27 countries if we may revoke Article 50, and hope that if they say yes they give us a deal which isn't too much worse than what we had before.' Bear in mind that the EU show no signs of making any generous offers - such as going back to the status quo ante including the Cameron renegotiation - and it is clear that they won't. They have three reasons to be awkward:

1. In this scenario we'd be suing for peace on any terms, so they's extract their pound of flesh.

2. They wouldn't want to establish a precedent that errant states can invoke Article 50 without ill effects.

3. They'd want to lock us irrevocably in the The Project so that they don't have a rerun of Brexit in a few years' time.

Even more so, they wouldn't agree terms in advance. The 'Remain' option would (ironically) be the leap in the dark in this scenario.

Absolute rubbish. Cameron's deal would be dead, but so what?

So would the rebate.