Farage’s long game and The Brexit Party’s true goals

[Stephen Cole]

In Richard Tice’s BXP campaign launch speech, he slipped in a remark that I
suspect may inform us a little better with regards Nigel’s true intent
behind his impossible offer to the Tories. Amongst the usual doom and
gloom, anti-EU spiel, Tice did go off on a rant about Britain’s electoral
system and its inherent unfairness to minor/new parties. He said that
millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes would not
matter, and that proportional representation would be an aim of The Brexit
Party. To be honest, he has a point; First Past The Post is a ludicrous and
broken system that needs to be scrapped wholesale. In 2015, UKIP took 12.5%
of the national vote (nearly 4 million votes) but only secured one seat.
Whatever you think of UKIP, that is an outrage for democracy. UKIP and
Farage went mental about it at the time and loudly demanded proportional
representation but obviously nothing changed.

But with Tice seeding that concept into his launch speech and Farage
setting up a confrontation with the Tories that is almost custom-made to
frustrate the Brexit that millions of people want, I expect to hear much
more about proportional representation following the election result on
13th December. It might well turn out that Farage is happy to lose the
prize of Brexit Now in exchange for PR Later and the almost certainty of
subsequent BXP seats in the Commons, from which he can then attack for his
favoured catastrophic Brexit in the early to mid 2020s. You heard it here
first, folks!

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Stephen Cole
In Richard Tice’s BXP campaign launch speech, he slipped in a remark that I
suspect may inform us a little better with regards Nigel’s true intent
behind his impossible offer to the Tories. Amongst the usual doom and
gloom, anti-EU spiel, Tice did go off on a rant about Britain’s electoral
system and its inherent unfairness to minor/new parties. He said that
millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes would not
matter, and that proportional representation would be an aim of The Brexit
Party. To be honest, he has a point; First Past The Post is a ludicrous and
broken system that needs to be scrapped wholesale. In 2015, UKIP took 12.5%
of the national vote (nearly 4 million votes) but only secured one seat.
Whatever you think of UKIP, that is an outrage for democracy. UKIP and
Farage went mental about it at the time and loudly demanded proportional
representation but obviously nothing changed.
But with Tice seeding that concept into his launch speech and Farage
setting up a confrontation with the Tories that is almost custom-made to
frustrate the Brexit that millions of people want, I expect to hear much
more about proportional representation following the election result on
13th December. It might well turn out that Farage is happy to lose the
prize of Brexit Now in exchange for PR Later and the almost certainty of
subsequent BXP seats in the Commons, from which he can then attack for his
favoured catastrophic Brexit in the early to mid 2020s. You heard it here
first, folks!
--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

Even AV (supported by Farage) but sadly resoundly rejected by voters, would produce a fairer result than FPTP, without letting in minnow parties.

Whilst any more proportional system would probably work to BP advantage, the real beneficiaries would be those in the centre rather than the extremes.

[Pamela]

In Richard Tice’s BXP campaign launch speech, he slipped in a remark
that I suspect may inform us a little better with regards Nigel’s true
intent behind his impossible offer to the Tories. Amongst the usual doom
and gloom, anti-EU spiel, Tice did go off on a rant about Britain’s
electoral system and its inherent unfairness to minor/new parties. He
said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter, and that proportional representation would be an aim
of The Brexit Party. To be honest, he has a point; First Past The Post
is a ludicrous and broken system that needs to be scrapped wholesale. In
2015, UKIP took 12.5% of the national vote (nearly 4 million votes) but
only secured one seat. Whatever you think of UKIP, that is an outrage
for democracy. UKIP and Farage went mental about it at the time and
loudly demanded proportional representation but obviously nothing
changed.
But with Tice seeding that concept into his launch speech and Farage
setting up a confrontation with the Tories that is almost custom-made to
frustrate the Brexit that millions of people want, I expect to hear much
more about proportional representation following the election result on
13th December. It might well turn out that Farage is happy to lose the
prize of Brexit Now in exchange for PR Later and the almost certainty of
subsequent BXP seats in the Commons, from which he can then attack for
his favoured catastrophic Brexit in the early to mid 2020s. You heard it
here first, folks!

Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the public are
not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the public are
not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

[Pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the
public are not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.

One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at the cost of
minor parties. When it fails to do even that things get messy, especially as
Westminster seems congenitally opposed to coalition governments.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the
public are not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.
One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at the cost of
minor parties. When it fails to do even that things get messy, especially as
Westminster seems congenitally opposed to coalition governments.

And yet coalition oppositions which try everything to frustrate governments,
seem to be welcomed with open arms at Westminster.

[abelard]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2019 10:45:21 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the
public are not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.
One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at the cost of
minor parties. When it fails to do even that things get messy, especially as
Westminster seems congenitally opposed to coalition governments.

And yet coalition oppositions which try everything to frustrate governments,
seem to be welcomed with open arms at Westminster.

left wing voters will be desperate to support farago...

they will work to make farage look viable, as that is the only hope
agent cob has

[Pamela]

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the
public are not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.
One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at the cost
of minor parties. When it fails to do even that things get messy,
especially as Westminster seems congenitally opposed to coalition
governments.

And yet coalition oppositions which try everything to frustrate
governments, seem to be welcomed with open arms at Westminster.

That's British democracy working as intended. Leavers know their vitory was
wafer thin and that by now it have vanished, so they are left to moan and
carp about democracy in a way which supports their undemocratic wishes.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Pamela

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the
public are not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.
One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at the cost
of minor parties. When it fails to do even that things get messy,
especially as Westminster seems congenitally opposed to coalition
governments.

And yet coalition oppositions which try everything to frustrate
governments, seem to be welcomed with open arms at Westminster.

That's British democracy working as intended.

Maybe, but the point you deliberately chose to miss - was that Westminster is
opposed to coalition governments, but welcomes coalition oppositions.

Why do you think that is?

[Pamela]

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Pamela

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed
the public are not much interested in alternatives to first
past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.
One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at the
cost of minor parties. When it fails to do even that things get
messy, especially as Westminster seems congenitally opposed to
coalition governments.

And yet coalition oppositions which try everything to frustrate
governments, seem to be welcomed with open arms at Westminster.

That's British democracy working as intended.

Maybe, but the point you deliberately chose to miss - was that
Westminster is opposed to coalition governments, but welcomes coalition
oppositions.
Why do you think that is?

How do you know it was deliberate?

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Pamela

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Pamela

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed
the public are not much interested in alternatives to first
past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.
One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at the
cost of minor parties. When it fails to do even that things get
messy, especially as Westminster seems congenitally opposed to
coalition governments.

And yet coalition oppositions which try everything to frustrate
governments, seem to be welcomed with open arms at Westminster.

That's British democracy working as intended.

Maybe, but the point you deliberately chose to miss - was that
Westminster is opposed to coalition governments, but welcomes coalition
oppositions.
Why do you think that is?

How do you know it was deliberate?

Because my statement concerning coalition oppositions being accepted, whereas
coalition governments being congenitally opposed by Westminster; returned the
reply about British democracy working as intended,

Do you see that as accidental?

[Pamela]

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Pamela

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Pamela

Post by Keema's Nan

On 08:03 3 Nov 2019, Ian

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago
showed the public are not much interested in alternatives
to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.
One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at
the cost of minor parties. When it fails to do even that things
get messy, especially as Westminster seems congenitally opposed
to coalition governments.

And yet coalition oppositions which try everything to frustrate
governments, seem to be welcomed with open arms at Westminster.

That's British democracy working as intended.

Maybe, but the point you deliberately chose to miss - was that
Westminster is opposed to coalition governments, but welcomes
coalition oppositions.
Why do you think that is?

How do you know it was deliberate?

Because my statement concerning coalition oppositions being accepted,
whereas coalition governments being congenitally opposed by Westminster;
returned the reply about British democracy working as intended,
Do you see that as accidental?

You are being presumptious.

[Fredxx]

Post by Pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the
public are not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.
One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at the cost of
minor parties. When it fails to do even that things get messy, especially as
Westminster seems congenitally opposed to coalition governments.

It's the best system there is. If a minority party draws votes away from
a majority party on a key issue, that issue is taken on board by one or
both major parties. Its a very effective system that keeps minority
parties out of contention yet the issues they raise get taken on board.

The exception where things get messy is where major parties go against
the will of the people or worst still underestimate the will of the
people and call a referendum that returns the wrong result.

[Pamela]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the
public are not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.
One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at the cost
of minor parties. When it fails to do even that things get messy,
especially as Westminster seems congenitally opposed to coalition
governments.

It's the best system there is. If a minority party draws votes away from
a majority party on a key issue, that issue is taken on board by one or
both major parties. Its a very effective system that keeps minority
parties out of contention yet the issues they raise get taken on board.
The exception where things get messy is where major parties go against
the will of the people or worst still underestimate the will of the
people and call a referendum that returns the wrong result.

All very true but many other countries have some form of PR and it works well
enough for us not to be afraid of it.

[abelard]

Post by Pamela

Post by Fredxx

Post by Pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the
public are not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.
One key benefit is FPTP creates a stable government, albeit at the cost
of minor parties. When it fails to do even that things get messy,
especially as Westminster seems congenitally opposed to coalition
governments.

It's the best system there is. If a minority party draws votes away from
a majority party on a key issue, that issue is taken on board by one or
both major parties. Its a very effective system that keeps minority
parties out of contention yet the issues they raise get taken on board.
The exception where things get messy is where major parties go against
the will of the people or worst still underestimate the will of the
people and call a referendum that returns the wrong result.

All very true but many other countries have some form of PR and it works well
enough for us not to be afraid of it.

cannibalism has worked well for many societies

fptp has worked better

[Vidcapper]

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
All very true but many other countries have some form of PR and it works well
enough for us not to be afraid of it.

cannibalism has worked well for many societies

Strawman

Post by abelard
fptp has worked better

But not recently...

[abelard]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
All very true but many other countries have some form of PR and it works well
enough for us not to be afraid of it.

cannibalism has worked well for many societies

Strawman

Post by abelard
fptp has worked better

But not recently...

and your version of 'recently' is?

and then you can try 'not better'

[Wor Kevin Keegan]

Post by Pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela
Sadly the "Alternative Vote" referendum a few years ago showed the
public are not much interested in alternatives to first past the post.

Then I guess we'll be forever doomed to accept TWOTP.

Sadly too often FPTP is not the will of most of the people.

Since when do you care about the will of most of the people?

[abelard]

On 2 Nov 2019 19:05:21 GMT, Stephen Cole

Post by Stephen Cole
. You heard it here
first, folks!

'we' hear it every time a small party is losing support

proportional rep is for idiots and losers...literally

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by abelard
On 2 Nov 2019 19:05:21 GMT, Stephen Cole

Post by Stephen Cole
. You heard it here
first, folks!

'we' hear it every time a small party is losing support
proportional rep is for idiots and losers...literally

Indeed. Why would any party that has got into power with FPTP want it?

[Vidcapper]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Indeed. Why would any party that has got into power with FPTP want it?

The Tories may well be in need of it in the years ahead. If they're still
around at all that is.

What makes you think they won't be?

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Indeed. Why would any party that has got into power with FPTP want it?

The Tories may well be in need of it in the years ahead. If they're
still around at all that is.

What makes you think they won't be?

Because Brexit has proved to be something of a Tory Party breaker. The
logical thing for Boris to do would be to accept that pact that Nigel
offered, but that would disenfranchise half their MPs and Boris doesn't
want a meaningful Brexit anyway, partly for the same reason: to keep the
Party together. He'll have to live with that decision now and the voters
will let us all know what they think of it.

[Cursitor Doom]

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

[Ian Jackson]

In message <qpn7c7$vo6$***@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <***@noreply.com>
writes

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

What they are promising is not difficult to understand. They are
promising that if they are elected, they will revoke A50. That's a main
point in their election manifesto. If they win, it will be by a
democratic decision of majority of the Dec 2019 electorate - and by
revoking A50, they will simply be doing what they promised they would do
in their manifesto.

Do you have a problem with that?

[Grik-basstardo®™]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
writes

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

What they are promising is not difficult to understand. They are
promising that if they are elected, they will revoke A50. That's a main
point in their election manifesto. If they win, it will be by a
democratic decision of majority of the Dec 2019 electorate - and by
revoking A50, they will simply be doing what they promised they would do
in their manifesto.
Do you have a problem with that?

The problem is obvious. The Lib Dems are unelectable as a party.
Therefore such 'promises' are meaningless.

[Peeler]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2019 12:20:17 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-basstardo®™", farted

Post by Grik-basstardo®™

Post by Ian Jackson
Do you have a problem with that?

The problem is obvious.

YOUR problem is obvious, you clinically insane pedophilic gay nazoid!

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their
votes would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in.
Why anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what
the electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond
me. :/

What they are promising is not difficult to understand. They are
promising that if they are elected, they will revoke A50. That's a
main point in their election manifesto. If they win, it will be by a
democratic decision of majority of the Dec 2019 electorate - and by
revoking A50, they will simply be doing what they promised they would
do in their manifesto.
Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, because it isn't a two-way decision. If the LDs were to form a
government, it would not be likely to be on the basis of more than 40%
of the votes cast, which could well be far fewer than the number who
voted to invoke Article 50.
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was the
absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states that the
referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be completely
ignored.

[Joe]

On 4 Nov 2019 07:40:35 GMT

Post by Stephen Cole
Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals.

Don't be silly: morals are the survival behaviour of a culture,
therefore one of the first things denigrated when trying to kill a
culture.

[Brian Reay]

Post by Joe
On 4 Nov 2019 07:40:35 GMT

Post by Stephen Cole
Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals.

Don't be silly: morals are the survival behaviour of a culture,
therefore one of the first things denigrated when trying to kill a
culture.

Steve wants to kill a culture where those who work, take responsibility for
theirselves and their families, act responsibly etc and replace it with
his view of utopia- where the lazy under achievers are rewarded. Why do
you think he supports Corbyn?

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Joe
On 4 Nov 2019 07:40:35 GMT

Post by Stephen Cole
Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals.

Don't be silly: morals are the survival behaviour of a culture,
therefore one of the first things denigrated when trying to kill a
culture.

Steve wants to kill a culture where those who work, take responsibility for
theirselves and their families, act responsibly etc and replace it with
his view of utopia- where the lazy under achievers are rewarded. Why do
you think he supports Corbyn?

Change is coming, Brian. Brace yourself for Land Value Tax, OM! Oof!

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Joe
On 4 Nov 2019 07:40:35 GMT

Post by Stephen Cole
Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals.

Don't be silly: morals are the survival behaviour of a culture,
therefore one of the first things denigrated when trying to kill a
culture.

Don’t be soft in the head. Morals are a human construct rather than
immutable laws of the Universe. They don’t exist, in any tangible way. The
law does, though, and the law says that the 2016 referendum result is
legally meaningless. HTH.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Joe
On 4 Nov 2019 07:40:35 GMT

Post by Stephen Cole
Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals.

Don't be silly: morals are the survival behaviour of a culture,
therefore one of the first things denigrated when trying to kill a
culture.

Don’t be soft in the head. Morals are a human construct rather than
immutable laws of the Universe. They don’t exist, in any tangible way. The
law does, though, and the law says that the 2016 referendum result is
legally meaningless. HTH.

Not only legally meaningless, but arguably to some extent morally - as a
lot of Leavers voted mainly to express their dissatisfaction with their
lot in life, much of which has little to do with our EU membership.

I still keep hearing Brexit in-phoners complaining about the
Conservative's programme of austerity, and general lack of support for
the deprived areas in 'The North'. I have a feeling that they will
continue to be taken in by all that money that's suddenly become
available under Boris's administration - but I guess that this is
essentially dependent on him retaining his premiership in December.

[Incubus]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Joe
On 4 Nov 2019 07:40:35 GMT

Post by Stephen Cole
Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals.

Don't be silly: morals are the survival behaviour of a culture,
therefore one of the first things denigrated when trying to kill a
culture.

Don’t be soft in the head. Morals are a human construct rather than
immutable laws of the Universe. They don’t exist, in any tangible way. The
law does, though, and the law says that the 2016 referendum result is
legally meaningless. HTH.

Not only legally meaningless, but arguably to some extent morally - as a
lot of Leavers voted mainly to express their dissatisfaction with their
lot in life, much of which has little to do with our EU membership.

So you suppose, claiming the abiliy to divine what people were thinking or
being unduly influenced by silly radio (rental) 'phone ins.

Post by Ian Jackson
I still keep hearing Brexit in-phoners complaining about the
Conservative's programme of austerity, and general lack of support for
the deprived areas in 'The North'. I have a feeling that they will
continue to be taken in by all that money that's suddenly become
available under Boris's administration - but I guess that this is
essentially dependent on him retaining his premiership in December.

What did New Labour do for deprived areas in the North of England besides flood
them with competition for jobs and housing?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Joe
On 4 Nov 2019 07:40:35 GMT

Post by Stephen Cole
Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals.

Don't be silly: morals are the survival behaviour of a culture,
therefore one of the first things denigrated when trying to kill a
culture.

Wot he said.

Morals are the rules by which a successful culture survives.

Encapsulated in religious or emotional claptrap.

[abelard]

Post by Joe
On 4 Nov 2019 07:40:35 GMT

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals.

Don't be silly: morals are the survival behaviour of a culture,
therefore one of the first things denigrated when trying to kill a
culture.

indeed, people like cole and agent cob are trying to kill culture
because they know better...

they believe they are 'scientific'...it is often called 'scientism'
to distinguish it from the genuine article


“These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of human frailties
and must lead to success, with almost mathematical certainty.”
[An attitude typical of the psychopath] [41]]
Mein Kampf, p.34

[abelard]

On 4 Nov 2019 07:40:35 GMT, Stephen Cole

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their
votes would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in.
Why anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what
the electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond
me. :/

What they are promising is not difficult to understand. They are
promising that if they are elected, they will revoke A50. That's a
main point in their election manifesto. If they win, it will be by a
democratic decision of majority of the Dec 2019 electorate - and by
revoking A50, they will simply be doing what they promised they would
do in their manifesto.
Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, because it isn't a two-way decision. If the LDs were to form a
government, it would not be likely to be on the basis of more than 40%
of the votes cast, which could well be far fewer than the number who
voted to invoke Article 50.
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals.

i can see that is true for you and for any socialist

just as enjoying eating crap, is true for dung beetles

it's all about your relatives

[Vidcapper]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was the
absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states that the
referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be completely
ignored.

No politician with any realistic hope of actual power says that. Unlike
you, they can foresee the probable consequences of ignoring democracy!

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was the
absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states that the
referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be completely
ignored.

No politician with any realistic hope of actual power says that. Unlike
you, they can foresee the probable consequences of ignoring democracy!

But fortunately, some MPs can also foresee the consequences of blindly
ploughing ahead with 'democracy' without first at least checking with
the voters that they are fully aware of what is likely to happen as a
result of their 'democratic' decision.

[Incubus]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was the
absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states that the
referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be completely
ignored.

No politician with any realistic hope of actual power says that. Unlike
you, they can foresee the probable consequences of ignoring democracy!

But fortunately, some MPs can also foresee the consequences of blindly
ploughing ahead with 'democracy' without first at least checking with
the voters that they are fully aware of what is likely to happen as a
result of their 'democratic' decision.

All the concerns, some real and others imagined, were put to the public before
the rerendum. This isn't Word for Windows where the user has to be asked to
confirm their choice.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was the
absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states that the
referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be completely
ignored.

No politician with any realistic hope of actual power says that. Unlike
you, they can foresee the probable consequences of ignoring democracy!

But fortunately, some MPs can also foresee the consequences of blindly
ploughing ahead with 'democracy' without first at least checking with
the voters that they are fully aware of what is likely to happen as a
result of their 'democratic' decision.

All the concerns, some real and others imagined, were put to the public before
the rerendum. This isn't Word for Windows where the user has to be asked to
confirm their choice.

A better analogy would be if the Word For Windows confirmation message
said "Select OK to proceed with your choice. If you do select OK, your
C-drive will also be re-formatted".

[Incubus]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was the
absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states that the
referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be completely
ignored.

No politician with any realistic hope of actual power says that. Unlike
you, they can foresee the probable consequences of ignoring democracy!

But fortunately, some MPs can also foresee the consequences of blindly
ploughing ahead with 'democracy' without first at least checking with
the voters that they are fully aware of what is likely to happen as a
result of their 'democratic' decision.

All the concerns, some real and others imagined, were put to the public before
the rerendum. This isn't Word for Windows where the user has to be asked to
confirm their choice.

A better analogy would be if the Word For Windows confirmation message
said "Select OK to proceed with your choice. If you do select OK, your
C-drive will also be re-formatted".

That's not a remotely accurate analogy. Your filesystem has obviously become
excessively fragmented.

[The Todal]

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was the
absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states that the
referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be completely
ignored.

No politician with any realistic hope of actual power says that. Unlike
you, they can foresee the probable consequences of ignoring democracy!

But fortunately, some MPs can also foresee the consequences of blindly
ploughing ahead with 'democracy' without first at least checking with
the voters that they are fully aware of what is likely to happen as a
result of their 'democratic' decision.

All the concerns, some real and others imagined, were put to the public before
the rerendum. This isn't Word for Windows where the user has to be asked to
confirm their choice.

A better analogy would be if the Word For Windows confirmation message
said "Select OK to proceed with your choice. If you do select OK, your
C-drive will also be re-formatted".

That's not a remotely accurate analogy. Your filesystem has obviously become
excessively fragmented.

A better analogy would be when you use a reliable Windows computer and
you are offered a free upgrade to Windows 10. You are told that the
benefits will be great, even if some programs might no longer work. You
proceed with the upgrade, optimistic that it will be worthwhile. Various
programs that you know and like and that are no longer marketed, then
stop working or work erratically. You find that there are no sound
drivers for your machine that work with Windows 10. You then spend your
time trying to find workarounds, and eventually have to decide whether
to uninstall Windows 10.

The analogy makes sense inasmuch as the sales people who marketed Leave
were sure that they had an excellent product, but they do not know how
it will affect each and every industry, employer or individual or each
and every city throughout the nation. They simply trust that there are
enough clever people to solve any problems that might arise. Solving the
problems isn't the job of Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg or Nigel
Farage. They are merely salesmen.

[Vidcapper]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was the
absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states that the
referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be completely
ignored.

No politician with any realistic hope of actual power says that.
Unlike you, they can foresee the probable consequences of ignoring
democracy!

But fortunately, some MPs can also foresee the consequences of blindly
ploughing ahead with 'democracy' without first at least checking with
the voters that they are fully aware of what is likely to happen as a
result of their 'democratic' decision.

At least with a 2nd referendum, some legitimacy can be claimed - unlike
Mr Cole's 'I don't want Brexit so fuck what the electorate decided'
attitude...

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was the
absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states that the
referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be completely
ignored.

No politician with any realistic hope of actual power says that.
Unlike you, they can foresee the probable consequences of ignoring
democracy!

But fortunately, some MPs can also foresee the consequences of blindly
ploughing ahead with 'democracy' without first at least checking with
the voters that they are fully aware of what is likely to happen as a
result of their 'democratic' decision.

At least with a 2nd referendum, some legitimacy can be claimed - unlike
Mr Cole's 'I don't want Brexit so fuck what the electorate decided'
attitude...

I don't think that that is his attitude at all. I've never heard any of
the Remain persuasion simply wanting to ignore the result of the
referendum. It's always been "It's a bad result that's wrong for the UK
- and many of the voters based their decision on incorrect and
misleading information - and sometimes on downright lies. As we now know
far more about the real pros and cons, the electorate should be allowed
to reconsider their original decision, and to vote in a second
referendum".

[Grikbassturdo®™]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:55:46 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Grik-basstardo®™
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:31:38 +0000
It would be utterly immoral for them to revoke unless they received
more votes than 17.4 million, and it's a long time since a party
managed that in a GE.

Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was the
absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states that the
referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be completely
ignored.

No politician with any realistic hope of actual power says that.
Unlike you, they can foresee the probable consequences of ignoring
democracy!

But fortunately, some MPs can also foresee the consequences of blindly
ploughing ahead with 'democracy' without first at least checking with
the voters that they are fully aware of what is likely to happen as a
result of their 'democratic' decision.

At least with a 2nd referendum, some legitimacy can be claimed - unlike
Mr Cole's 'I don't want Brexit so fuck what the electorate decided'
attitude...

I don't think that that is his attitude at all. I've never heard any of
the Remain persuasion simply wanting to ignore the result of the
referendum.

That has ALWAYS been the attitude of Remain MPs in Parliament.

Post by Ian Jackson
It's always been "It's a bad result that's wrong for the UK
- and many of the voters based their decision on incorrect and
misleading information - and sometimes on downright lies. As we now know
far more about the real pros and cons, the electorate should be allowed
to reconsider their original decision, and to vote in a second
referendum".

What would be the point? When the Conservatives are re-elected with a
large majority, they will simply ignore the result.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 05:42:40 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous

Post by Grikbassturdo®™

Post by Ian Jackson
I don't think that that is his attitude at all. I've never heard any of
the Remain persuasion simply wanting to ignore the result of the
referendum.

That has ALWAYS been the attitude of Remain MPs in Parliament.

ONLY in your psychopathic head, serb peasant!

Post by Grikbassturdo®™

Post by Ian Jackson
It's always been "It's a bad result that's wrong for the UK
- and many of the voters based their decision on incorrect and
misleading information - and sometimes on downright lies. As we now know
far more about the real pros and cons, the electorate should be allowed
to reconsider their original decision, and to vote in a second
referendum".

What would be the point? When the Conservatives are re-elected with a
large majority, they will simply ignore the result.

ONLY in your psychopathic head, serb peasant!

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Stephen Cole
Just FYI; there’s no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was
the absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states
that the referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be
completely ignored.

Another straw-clutcher.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Just FYI; there's no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was
the absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states
that the referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be
completely ignored.

Another straw-clutcher.

Not at all. The old referendum result simply doesn't have the deep
mystical significance some people seem to give it. Granted as a
political gesture to the extreme right of the Tory party, advisory in
nature, borderline result on an average turnout. And more than three
years old. It's history. Not a central part of Our Island History.
Not immutable, or even very important. Not central to our
constitutional form of government. We all make mistakes.

[abelard]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Cursitor Doom

Just FYI; there's no such thing as morals. All there is is the law, and
nowhere in the law does it say that the referendum result of 2016 was
the absolute last word on the matter. Indeed, the law actually states
that the referendum was merely advisory, so can quite properly be
completely ignored.

Another straw-clutcher.

Not at all. The old referendum result simply doesn't have the deep
mystical significance some people seem to give it.

the alternate being the 'mysticism' that drives revolutions

Post by Roger Hayter
Granted as a
political gesture to the extreme right of the Tory party, advisory in
nature, borderline result on an average turnout. And more than three
years old. It's history. Not a central part of Our Island History.
Not immutable, or even very important. Not central to our
constitutional form of government. We all make mistakes.

[nightjar]

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

[abelard]

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

cwadimene

[Vidcapper]

Post by abelard

Post by nightjar
The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

cwadimene

Huh?

[nightjar]

Post by abelard

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

cwadimene

Which means what?

[charles]

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their
votes would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

even if the electorate wanted it - we all want things that are necessarily
good for us.

[Al]

Post by nightjar
The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

You could have fooled me! IME it's gone the other way - certainly in the
last year or so anyway and I've not met one single solitary person who's
gone from Leave to Remain.
I've had it with Labour and the Tories. I've always voted Labour but have
only recently realised what a mug I've been. I'm going to give the Brexit
Party my vote this time cos Nigel truly believes in Britain - and that
makes for a very refreshing change from all the others.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Al

Post by nightjar
The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

You could have fooled me! IME it's gone the other way - certainly in the
last year or so anyway and I've not met one single solitary person who's
gone from Leave to Remain.
I've had it with Labour and the Tories. I've always voted Labour but have
only recently realised what a mug I've been. I'm going to give the Brexit
Party my vote this time cos Nigel truly believes in Britain - and that
makes for a very refreshing change from all the others.

You're wasting your vote because there is no chance that TBP will
get even one MP elected and you are increasing the chance of
getting one a Labour or LD getting elected because most leavers
will be voting Tory this time around.

[Peeler]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 14:00:06 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Post by Rod Speed
You're wasting your vote because there is no chance that TBP will

It's NONE of yours what he will vote; nor is ANY of this topic ANY of yours,
you obnoxious, cretinous, trolling senile pest from Australia!

[nightjar]

Post by Al

Post by nightjar
The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

You could have fooled me! IME it's gone the other way - certainly in the
last year or so anyway...

Then you haven't been following the polls.

...

Post by Al
I've had it with Labour and the Tories. I've always voted Labour but have
only recently realised what a mug I've been. I'm going to give the Brexit
Party my vote this time

The only thing TBP is likely to do is to make it much less likely that
the Conservatives form the next government, which is not a bad thing
IMO, as any of the others might stop Brexit.

Post by Al
cos Nigel truly believes in Britain - and that
makes for a very refreshing change from all the others.

Nigel believes in whatever keeps Nigel in the news.

[Vidcapper]

Post by charles

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their
votes would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

even if the electorate wanted it - we all want things that are necessarily
good for us.

We are *not* children, so the choice must be ours, not that of a few
hundred MP's!

[abelard]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by charles

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their
votes would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

even if the electorate wanted it - we all want things that are necessarily
good for us.

We are *not* children, so the choice must be ours, not that of a few
hundred MP's!

that's all very well, but dictatorial cults like socialism wants
children....they are easier to control

[Vidcapper]

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

Is that your opinion, or did we have another referendum that I missed? :p

[nightjar]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

Is that your opinion, or did we have another referendum that I missed? :p

It is what the poll show:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-britain-against-leaving-eu-as-poll-of-polls-says-most-now-want-to-stay-a4257476.html

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

[Vidcapper]

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

Is that your opinion, or did we have another referendum that I missed? :p

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-britain-against-leaving-eu-as-poll-of-polls-says-most-now-want-to-stay-a4257476.html
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

[nightjar]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

Is that your opinion, or did we have another referendum that I missed? :p

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-britain-against-leaving-eu-as-poll-of-polls-says-most-now-want-to-stay-a4257476.html
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better. However, I wouldn't object to asking the
electorate again.

[Incubus]

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

Is that your opinion, or did we have another referendum that I missed? :p

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-britain-against-leaving-eu-as-poll-of-polls-says-most-now-want-to-stay-a4257476.html
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

That's patently untrue because polling got the result of the referendum wrong.

Post by nightjar
However, I wouldn't object to asking the
electorate again.

Of course you wouldn't but not for any reasons concerned with accuracy.

[nightjar]

Post by Incubus

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

Is that your opinion, or did we have another referendum that I missed? :p

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-britain-against-leaving-eu-as-poll-of-polls-says-most-now-want-to-stay-a4257476.html
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

That's patently untrue because polling got the result of the referendum wrong.

They showed a very close contest and, while most suggested that remain
was more likely to win, the number of undecided was always more than
enough to swing it either way.

Post by Incubus

Post by nightjar
However, I wouldn't object to asking the
electorate again.

Of course you wouldn't but not for any reasons concerned with accuracy.

If it still the will of the majority to leave, then now is the time to
prove it.

[The Marquis Saint Evremonde]

Post by nightjar

Post by Incubus
That's patently untrue because polling got the result of the
referendum wrong.

They showed a very close contest and, while most suggested that remain
was more likely to win,

In other words, they were wrong.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Incubus

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

Is that your opinion, or did we have another referendum that I missed? :p

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-britain-against-leaving-eu-as-poll-of-polls-says-most-now-want-to-stay-a4257476.html
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

That's patently untrue because polling got the result of the referendum wrong.

They showed a very close contest and, while most suggested that remain was
more likely to win, the number of undecided was always more than enough to
swing it either way.

Just as true of the current polls you wave around.

Post by Incubus

Post by nightjar
However, I wouldn't object to asking the electorate again.

Of course you wouldn't but not for any reasons concerned with accuracy.

If it still the will of the majority to leave, then now is the time to
prove it.

Nope, that was proven already. With such a difficult policy to implement,
its never going to be feasible to have another referendum every fucking
week.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:16:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile Ozzie pest's latest trollshit>

Shut your senile gob and jump back into your roo's pouch you escaped from,
senile Rodent!

[Vidcapper]

Post by nightjar

Post by Incubus
That's patently untrue because polling got the result of the
referendum wrong.

They showed a very close contest and, while most suggested that remain
was more likely to win, the number of undecided was always more than
enough to swing it either way.

Were they actually undecided, or 'don't give a shit either way'... :p

[nightjar]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Incubus
That's patently untrue because polling got the result of the
referendum wrong.

They showed a very close contest and, while most suggested that remain
was more likely to win, the number of undecided was always more than
enough to swing it either way.

Were they actually undecided, or 'don't give a shit either way'... :p

Evidently not, or the result would have been to remain. However, it
seems that there are far fewer undecided people today. One recent poll
gave the result that, if there were to be another referendum, 51% would
vote remain, 46% would vote leave with only 3% undecided. Unlike the
2015 polls, the undecided there are less than the difference between the
two options.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Incubus
That's patently untrue because polling got the result of the referendum wrong.

They showed a very close contest and, while most suggested that remain
was more likely to win, the number of undecided was always more than
enough to swing it either way.

Were they actually undecided, or 'don't give a shit either way'... :p

Evidently not, or the result would have been to remain. However, it seems
that there are far fewer undecided people today. One recent poll gave the
result that, if there were to be another referendum, 51% would vote
remain, 46% would vote leave with only 3% undecided.

Pity about the other polls.

Unlike the 2015 polls, the undecided there are less than the difference
between the two options.

Pity about the other polls.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:44:55 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Post by Rod Speed
Pity about the other polls.

Pity about you being a filthy troll!

[Vidcapper]

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Incubus
That's patently untrue because polling got the result of the referendum wrong.

They showed a very close contest and, while most suggested that remain
was more likely to win, the number of undecided was always more than
enough to swing it either way.

Were they actually undecided, or 'don't give a shit either way'... :p

Evidently not, or the result would have been to remain. However, it
seems that there are far fewer undecided people today. One recent poll
gave the result that, if there were to be another referendum, 51% would
vote remain, 46% would vote leave with only 3% undecided. Unlike the
2015 polls, the undecided there are less than the difference between the
two options.

I think we're getting 'undecided' confused with 'abstainers' here.

[nightjar]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Incubus
That's patently untrue because polling got the result of the referendum wrong.

They showed a very close contest and, while most suggested that remain
was more likely to win, the number of undecided was always more than
enough to swing it either way.

Were they actually undecided, or 'don't give a shit either way'... :p

Evidently not, or the result would have been to remain. However, it
seems that there are far fewer undecided people today. One recent poll
gave the result that, if there were to be another referendum, 51% would
vote remain, 46% would vote leave with only 3% undecided. Unlike the
2015 polls, the undecided there are less than the difference between the
two options.

I think we're getting 'undecided' confused with 'abstainers' here.

Nope. The percentages given are for those people who say they would
vote. Would not vote is a separate category which is not normally included.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Incubus
That's patently untrue because polling got the result of the referendum wrong.

They showed a very close contest and, while most suggested that remain
was more likely to win, the number of undecided was always more than
enough to swing it either way.

Were they actually undecided, or 'don't give a shit either way'... :p

Evidently not, or the result would have been to remain. However, it
seems that there are far fewer undecided people today. One recent poll
gave the result that, if there were to be another referendum, 51% would
vote remain, 46% would vote leave with only 3% undecided. Unlike the
2015 polls, the undecided there are less than the difference between the
two options.

I think we're getting 'undecided' confused with 'abstainers' here.

Nope. The percentages given are for those people who say they would vote.
Would not vote is a separate category which is not normally included.

And that’s another reason why polls are so hopeless
at predicting referendum and election results.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:28:49 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Post by Rod Speed
And that’s another reason why polls are so hopeless
at predicting referendum and election results.

NO poll is as utterly hopeless as you are, you nym-shifting, trolling piece
of senile Ozzie shit!

[pensive hamster]

[...]

Post by Incubus

Post by nightjar
However, I wouldn't object to asking the
electorate again.

Of course you wouldn't but not for any reasons concerned with accuracy.

While it may be accurate to say that 51.9% of voters supported
Brexit 3 and a bit years ago, there appears to be no data about
what percentage of voters currently support Brexit, nor much data
about what Brexit actually is, nor about what percentage of voters
might support an opportunity to state their current view on Brexit.

If you have old data, why on earth would you want accurate current
data?

[abelard]

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

Is that your opinion, or did we have another referendum that I missed? :p

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-britain-against-leaving-eu-as-poll-of-polls-says-most-now-want-to-stay-a4257476.html
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

statements so obviously ridiculous as to seen you back a year or two

Post by nightjar
However, I wouldn't object to asking the
electorate again.

that's because you lost and are probably a member of an extremist cult

[Chris]

Post by abelard
that's because you lost and are probably a member of an extremist cult

He's just one of our regular trolls; ignore him.

[abelard]

Post by Chris

Post by abelard
that's because you lost and are probably a member of an extremist cult

He's just one of our regular trolls; ignore him.

remembering them all is a task and a trial

[Rod Speed]

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

The electorate stopped wanting it around mid 2017 and the majority view
now is that voting to leave was a mistake.

Is that your opinion, or did we have another referendum that I missed? :p

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-britain-against-leaving-eu-as-poll-of-polls-says-most-now-want-to-stay-a4257476.html
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling.

Must be why the polls got the referendum result so wrong.

Post by nightjar
In some cases, it is even better.

Not even possible.

Post by nightjar
However, I wouldn't object to asking the electorate again.

And again and again when it isnt the result you want.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 04:49:44 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Post by Rod Speed
And again and again when it isnt the result you want.

And, again again: nobody wants YOU around! NEITHER on Usenet NOR in real
life!

[Vidcapper]

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

However, I wouldn't object to asking the

Post by nightjar
electorate again.

And a 3rd time if the result still goes the 'wrong' way?

[kat]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

I can't even work out how a sample poll can be more accurate than the real result!

[pensive hamster]

Post by kat

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

I can't even work out how a sample poll can be more accurate than the real result!

Maybe because sample polls can be more up to date?

People's opinions can sometimes change.

[kat]

Post by pensive hamster

Post by kat

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

I can't even work out how a sample poll can be more accurate than the real result!

Maybe because sample polls can be more up to date?
People's opinions can sometimes change.

The statement is

"Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better."

Changed minds years later have nothing to do with that.

[pensive hamster]

Post by kat

Post by pensive hamster

Post by kat

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

I can't even work out how a sample poll can be more accurate than the real result!

Maybe because sample polls can be more up to date?
People's opinions can sometimes change.

The statement is
"Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better."
Changed minds years later have nothing to do with that.

Do they not? Then what does "In some cases" mean?

If I was doing market research, I might prefer current poll data
to 3-year old sales figures. The possibility of changed minds
over the years has everything to do with that.

[Grikbassturdo®™]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 04:51:45 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster

Post by pensive hamster

Post by kat

Post by pensive hamster

Post by kat

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

I can't even work out how a sample poll can be more accurate than the real result!

Maybe because sample polls can be more up to date?
People's opinions can sometimes change.

The statement is
"Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better."
Changed minds years later have nothing to do with that.

Do they not? Then what does "In some cases" mean?

Not much. Nothing, in fact.

Post by pensive hamster
If I was doing market research, I might prefer current poll data
to 3-year old sales figures. The possibility of changed minds
over the years has everything to do with that.

Then you're not comparing like with like, are you?

[Rod Speed]

Post by kat

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

I can't even work out how a sample poll can be more accurate than the real result!

Yeah, he's completely off with the fucking fairys.

Maybe he meant that a poll might in theory give a more
accurate result than the referendum because it doesn’t
involve those who didn’t bother to vote because they
assumed that the result would be to remain, but that’s
even sillier given the massive don’t know percentage,

[Peeler]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:41:08 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Post by Rod Speed
Yeah, he's completely off with the fucking fairys.

...says the clinically insane sociopathic Ozzietard who gets up EVERY NIGHT
between 1 and 4 am, just so he got someone to pester on Usenet with his
idiotic senile trolling!

[Ian Jackson]

Post by kat

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

I can't even work out how a sample poll can be more accurate than the real result!

For some, it's obviously "more accurate" when its result is one you
agree with.

When its result is not the one you agree with, then it's often a case of
"opinion polls are always inaccurate, and are usually wrong".

However, a sample opinion poll taken today could well be a lot more
accurate about the present situation than a 100% poll taken over three
years ago.

[abelard]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:40:16 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by kat

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

I can't even work out how a sample poll can be more accurate than the real result!

For some, it's obviously "more accurate" when its result is one you
agree with.
When its result is not the one you agree with, then it's often a case of
"opinion polls are always inaccurate, and are usually wrong".
However, a sample opinion poll taken today could well be a lot more
accurate about the present situation than a 100% poll taken over three
years ago.

and it could be worserer

[Tim Lamb]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.
However, I wouldn't object to asking the

Post by nightjar
electorate again.

And a 3rd time if the result still goes the 'wrong' way?

Depends a bit on the choice. I think a second advisory referendum should
settle the issue now there has been so much discussion of the
propaganda and outright lies leading up to the first.

The future of our country should not be risked to prolong the life of a
single political party.

I will continue to vote remain but will not man any barricades if the
rest of the country chooses to vote otherwise.

[nightjar]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

While there is a margin of error in any statistical sample, it is fairly
small in samples of those sizes. A much bigger margin is due to the fact
that you are dealing with people, who may or may not answer accurately.

Post by Vidcapper
However, I wouldn't object to asking the

Post by nightjar
electorate again.

And a 3rd time if the result still goes the 'wrong' way?

I expect the Brexiteers would call for that if, as is likely, they lost.
However, we really do need to know that it is still the will of the
people before we leave and lose the major opt-outs that come from us
having been members for so long. If we have to reapply for memberships,
which people will be calling for as soon as we leave, we will have to
accept all the conditions that a new member faces.

[kat]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
Opinion polls based on a few thousand do not measure up against a
referendum asking the entire electorate!

Statistical sampling is just as accurate as 100% sampling. In some
cases, it is even better.

I disagree - that's why opinion polls always quote a margin of error.

While there is a margin of error in any statistical sample, it is fairly small
in samples of those sizes. A much bigger margin is due to the fact that you are
dealing with people, who may or may not answer accurately.

Post by Vidcapper
However, I wouldn't object to asking the

Post by nightjar
electorate again.

And a 3rd time if the result still goes the 'wrong' way?

I expect the Brexiteers would call for that if, as is likely, they lost.

And Remainers can't really complain, having spent so long doing it themselves.

[nightjar]

...

Post by nightjar

Post by Vidcapper
And a 3rd time if the result still goes the 'wrong' way?

I expect the Brexiteers would call for that if, as is likely, they lost.

And Remainers can't really complain,  having spent so long doing it
themselves.

I doubt they would. Unlike Brexiteers, they would probably recognise
that public opinion changes and needs to be resampled from time to time.
However, unlike now, there would be no time pressure on sampling again,
as staying in does not lose us unique opt-outs.

[Joe]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:12:26 +0000

Post by nightjar
While there is a margin of error in any statistical sample, it is
fairly small in samples of those sizes. A much bigger margin is due
to the fact that you are dealing with people, who may or may not
answer accurately.

You're also assuming perfect sampling. This may not be the case either
by accident or design, particularly with political subjects.

And as I (nearly) said before, opinion polls with published results are
designed to affect peoples' opinions, not measure them. What is the
point of measuring them? The eventual election/referendum/whatever will
do that much more accurately.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Joe
On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:12:26 +0000

Post by nightjar
While there is a margin of error in any statistical sample, it is
fairly small in samples of those sizes. A much bigger margin is due
to the fact that you are dealing with people, who may or may not
answer accurately.

You're also assuming perfect sampling. This may not be the case either
by accident or design, particularly with political subjects.
And as I (nearly) said before, opinion polls with published results are
designed to affect peoples' opinions, not measure them. What is the
point of measuring them?

The obvious point is to see what those polled think
about the current policys and change them when it
is clear that they don't appeal to those polled.

Post by Joe
The eventual election/referendum/whatever
will do that much more accurately.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Cursitor Doom

He said that millions of voters would be disenfranchised and their votes
would not matter

Which is precisely what the Lib-Dems are promising if they get in. Why
anyone would vote for such a party that promises to scupper what the
electorate want, and considers such betrayal a virtue, is beyond me. :/

We have a very clear-cut constitution. A party winning a Parliamentary
majority have a right to put forward their manifesto policies, and
execute them if they retain a sufficient majority. Any anomalous and
exceptional procedures like a referendum in past years, even recent, are
trumped by this long-established ocnstitutional process. Of course, if
the referendum result wasn't a fluke and people still want to leave in
the same sort of numbers then they won't get a parliamentary majority so
the problem won't arise. But the converse does apply!