dimreepr

Theresa May resigns

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Farage has never really gone away and has always represented leave (in no uncertain terms) so I'm not sure why the haste of the set up is relevant. 

But that's not the problem, the problem is, the media has created an almost perfect polarisation of our society, which automatically leads to confrontation, and away from consideration; it doesn't matter who wins, they other side will fight on; "no compromise, no prisoners" undoubtedly on their lips. 

Yes, the media, and internet in particular, is a bit of a wild beast atm. If you look wider afield, we are only following the general trend towards a more nationalistic outlook. Globalism and co-operation is taking an increasingly back seat.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, the media, and internet in particular, is a bit of a wild beast atm. If you look wider afield, we are only following the general trend towards a more nationalistic outlook. Globalism and co-operation is taking an increasingly back seat.

Although, across Europe the populists did less well than predicted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

 Try looking at it with a scientist's eye.

OK.

You have pointed out that some of the Conservatives (9.1% of teh votes) would be pro brexit.

And you have ignored the fact that some of the Labour voters (14.1% of the votes) would be anti brexit.

So, let's try looking at it as scientists.

The first thing to do is accept that we have poor, incomplete data.

Any outcome will be an estimate.

We do, however have additional data.
For example, we know that, at the referendum, roughly 2/3 of  Labour voters voted to remain.

We also know that roughly half of Conservative voters voted for remain.

Most people won't have changed their minds (there's data about that too, if you want to look for it).
So we can, very roughly, allocate 2/3 of the 14.1% to Remain

Remain gains 9.4% and Leave gains the other third  i.e. 4.7% 

and very roughly 1/2 of the 9.1%  to Remain which is  about 4.5% and the other 4.5% goes to Leave.

 

Pro Brexit goes up to 36.8 + 4.5 + 4.7

46%

Pro Leave goes up to 38 + 4.5 + 9.4

51.9%

Now, consider the original result was 52:48 in favour of Leave and then consider this assertion, brought about by only counting Tories as pro without counting Labour as anti.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

so it is roughly still in parity with the original result... no wild swings either way. 

 

And contemplate the irony of 
 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Try looking at it with a scientist's eye.

 

 

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Strange said:

Although, across Europe the populists did less well than predicted. 

I never spoke about prediction

 

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

OK.

You have pointed out that some of the Conservatives (9.1%) would be pro brexit.

And you have ignored the fact that some of the Labour voters (14.1% of the votes) would be pro brexit.

So, let's try looking at it as scientists.

The first thing to do is accept that we have poor, incomplete data.

Any outcome will be an estimate.

We do, however have additional data.
For example, we know that, at the referendum, roughly 2/3 of  Labour voters voted to remain.

We also know that roughly half of Conservative voters voted for remain.

Most people won't have changed their minds (there's data about that too, if you want to look for it).
So we can, very roughly, allocate 2/3 of the 14.1% to Remain

Remain gains 9.4% and Leave gains the other third  i.e. 4.7% 

and very roughly 1/2 of the 9.1%  to Remain which is  about 4.5% and the other 4.5% goes to Leave.

 

Pro Brexit goes up to 36.8 + 4.5 + 4.7

46%

Pro Leave goes up to 38 + 4.5 + 9.4

51.9%

Now, consider the original result was 52:48 in favour of Leave and then consider this assertion, brought about by only counting Tories as pro without counting Labour as anti.

 

And contemplate the irony of 
 

 

 

I was looking at the overall trend in each party i.e. Labour remain and Tory leave. The sad thing,for me, in this discussion is the entrenched partisan bias in this discussion. None of our comments are worth shit really. I don't know why but I expect better from people with a scientific bent.. that's my naivete, I guess.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I never spoke about prediction

Some of them just didn't do very well. Full stop.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I was looking at the overall trend in each party i.e. Labour remain and Tory leave. The sad thing,for me, in this discussion is the entrenched partisan bias in this discussion. None of our comments are worth shit really. I don't know why but I expect better from people with a scientific bent.. that's my naivete, I guess.

John was responding to a post where you made a statement that did not appear to be supported by the data. He provided plenty of data to support what he said but you appear to dismiss this as "bias" and "shit".

I can easily provide data to support the fact that the Brexit parties lost about 20% of their votes and the Remain parties gained about 20%. That seems to be a significant swing, contrary to what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Some of them just didn't do very well. Full stop.

John was responding to a post where you made a statement that did not appear to be supported by the data. He provided plenty of data to support what he said but you appear to dismiss this as "bias" and "shit".

I can easily provide data to support the fact that the Brexit parties lost about 20% of their votes and the Remain parties gained about 20%. That seems to be a significant sign, contrary to what you said.

So, which bit don't you understand? Looking at the vote share change, The Greens, The Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives  only just beat them combined! I don't have a horse in this race. The reality is the Brexit Party are up there.

 

Opera Snapshot_2019-05-27_150550_www.bbc.com.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The reality is the Brexit Party are up there.

With a third of the vote.

Your original claim was that Farage's gain of 7% was impressive. It isn't. Especially considering how much support he gets from the UK press.

You also said there had been "no wild swings". I'm not sure if a gain of 20% for one side and a loss of 20% by the other side counts as "wild" but it is certainly significant.

If there were another referendum (which would apparently be "undemocratic") then it seems likely the results would be very different from last time.

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The Greens, The Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives  only just beat them combined!

They got 55.6% compared to his 31.6%. Nearly twice as much.

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm not sure if a gain of 20% for one side and a loss of 20% by the other side counts as "wild" but it is certainly significant.

Just looked at the numbers again and, by coincidence, the Leave supporting parties have lost exactly 20 seats, while the Remain parties have gained exactly 20 seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

With a third of the vote.

Your original claim was that Farage's gain of 7% was impressive. It isn't. Especially considering how much support he gets from the UK press.

You also said there had been "no wild swings". I'm not sure if a gain of 20% for one side and a loss of 20% by the other side counts as "wild" but it is certainly significant.

If there were another referendum (which would apparently be "undemocratic") then it seems likely the results would be very different from last time.

They got 55.6% compared to his 31.6%. Nearly twice as much.

What? 28 seats vs LD15 + L10 + G7 + C3 = 30 seats.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What? 28 seats vs LD15 + L10 + G7 + C3 = 30 seats.

That is 35 not 30 (25% more than Farago)

But I was talking about the percentages of the vote. (I just added a comment about the swing in terms of numbers; oddly it is the same as the percentages)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is 35 not 30 (25% more than Farago)

But I was talking about the percentages of the vote. (I just added a comment about the swing in terms of numbers; oddly it is the same as the percentages)

So it is. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should have a referendum to sort it out (but this time, get the Leave camp to obey the rules).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Perhaps we should have a referendum to sort it out (but this time, get the Leave camp to obey the rules).

In Australia in the mid 70's our courts revealed that there was no requirement for truth in political advertising. This was pre Australia Act 1986 so there was no rule requiring truth in UK political advertising either, unless one has been introduced since then. Around the same time the wrestlers from our 'World Championship Wrestling' were all required to join the Actors Equity Union.

Just to be consistent, why not flush your double jeopardy laws down the toilet along with your constitutional values and what little remains of your political integrity and honesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

In Australia in the mid 70's our courts revealed that there was no requirement for truth in political advertising. This was pre Australia Act 1986 so there was no rule requiring truth in UK political advertising either,

I think you are right. I think there was a recent attempt to make a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority who said they had no jurisdiction over political ads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

In Australia in the mid 70's our courts revealed that there was no requirement for truth in political advertising.

 

I guess you didn't read this bit.

On 5/26/2019 at 6:23 PM, John Cuthber said:

Democracy may be many things, but brexit is the result of lying and cheating.

Lying was writing on the side of a bus that we would  gain £350 million a week to spend on the NHS.

Cheating was not admitting that the bus cost money and should be included in the election budget.

 

If this had been a football match and someone had cheated, we would be demanding a rematch.

Shouldn't we hold politics to the same standards?

Getting them to stop lying may be impossible, but, at least, we can get them to stop cheating.

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm delighted to see the fall in support of Brexit.

I think that's wishful thinking and bias when interpreting the results. The Tories are a brexit party (hard or soft I don't care).  You can't not count them towards the leave vote. Also, if The Brexit party got a third of the vote alone then that is still a land slide.

I'm not convinced a second referendum will give a different result at all.

I agree there should be one though  --  with a regulated, legal campaign by both sides.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DrP said:

You can't not count them towards the leave vote

I did count them.

Well, I counted half of them- on the basis of the available evidence which said that, at the Referendum about half of them voted each way.

Do you have better data?

If so, I'd love to see it.

12 minutes ago, DrP said:

Also, if The Brexit party got a third of the vote alone then that is still a land slide.

Can you have a landslide minority in a PR election?

13 minutes ago, DrP said:

I'm not convinced a second referendum will give a different result at all.

I am.

But that's only based on the available facts, and the votes and polls since 2016

What's the basis of your conviction?

Do you feel that a 4% majority in a 2 horse race is insurmountable or do you think that people have not taken account of the new information (post referendum) and changed their minds?

However, even if I'm mistaken, it has to be worth a try.   What do we have to lose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Can you have a landslide minority in a PR election?

1st place got nearly twice the seats compared to second place. That's a landslide imo. I don't think the term 'Landslide' is exactly defined for election victories - it just means you won by a huge amount - which they did.  Nearly twice the seats of the Lib-Dems.  Looking at the percentages then maybe not - depends on the definition - but it was convincing no? Farage's views are still very popular.   

 

16 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I am.

Maybe - but it will be just as close I reckon. Who really knows until we do it?

18 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

However, even if I'm mistaken, it has to be worth a try.   What do we have to lose?

I'm down with it. I think there should have been one a while back when it was pointed out to the public that the leave campaign was a fairy tale and they spent too much.

I remember at the time when the leaflet from David Cameron's lot came round in support for the EU and my farther was going mental about the waste of money from the government in advertising nonsense about the EU. Any discussion with him about any positives about the EU is met with extreme dissonance and anger and claims of lies and brainwashing and treason. I expect there are many more like him that will never change their mind even when presented with clear facts that contradict their horrible and ignorant beliefs about foreigners.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DrP said:

1st place got nearly twice the seats compared to second place. That's a landslide imo. I don't think the term 'Landslide' is exactly defined for election victories - it just means you won by a huge amount - which they did. 

I don't think the word "won" really makes sense in a PR election with multiple "winners".

And I would assume a landslide win means a large (and possibly unexpected) increase in the number of seats. As it is, Farage had a small increase so I don't know if it counts as a landslide.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrP said:

Farage's views are still very popular.   

"Not farage's views" is more popular.


It's also important to recognise that the Brexit party has been elected to the EU parliament.

There are  751 MEPs

29 of those are now Brexit party MEPs.

They can't possibly win a vote, so...

 

3.8% is not a landslide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't think the word "won" really makes sense in a PR election with multiple "winners".

Unless you consider shooting yourself in the foot, is a way to win; it makes me wonder what the loser did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

29 of those are now Brexit party MEPs.

They can't possibly win a vote, so...

Farage is rarely there anyway. I don't expect the others to do anything useful either.

Just take the money and then complain about how undemocratic it is that they have been elected to represent their country.

Or maybe they will turn up and find out that there are a lot of dedicated and hard-working MEPs who take seriously the interests of their countries and the EU. Maybe they will learn something...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Maybe they will learn something...

Yes, where's the nearest bar.

In which 'Nige' explains the logic of self flagellation and why we're exempt.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/24/2019 at 2:58 PM, iNow said:

Vote again on whether or not Brexit is the best path forward or if, given all that’s been learned these last few years, it’s simply better to remain in the EU. 

Contrary to claims that allowing a 2nd vote would destroy the central tenets of democracy itself, it would actually reinforce them. 

“We decided, we tried, we failed. We tried again and failed again. Four times. We learned about the errors of our past decision and collectively decided to pursue a better path.”

Suggesting this is the opposite of democracy is silly. Vote again. Do what the people decide since the last decision couldn’t be realized. 

TBH I'm starting to think this would be the worst case scenario, because the numbers suggest we would remain; and if we remain almost half of the population will be bloody furious and just looking for a fight. 

But If we leave with a deal, half of them and most of us will just MEH.

And if we leave without a deal, not so much MEH as "Please sir can I have some more"; which at least wouldn't lead to a senseless war... Directly...

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. Meanwhile, empires keep crumbling from within...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe. Meanwhile, empires keep crumbling from within...

The circle of life, doesn't have to be painful...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now