Discussion:
"Brexit: Leave very likely won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, says Oxford professor's evidence to High Court"
Add Reply
Pamela
2018-12-05 23:04:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I guess we knew this all along. Here are extracts from the article:


It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.

An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the
outcome.


"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."


It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote – and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
abelard
2018-12-06 09:51:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
confirmation bias

there is nothing so daft that an intellectual won't believe it....

the woman on the no. 12 'bus decided otherwise...

such it up...you lost
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2018-12-06 10:21:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote – and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably influenced far
more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as decided by a pro-EU
Electoral Commission.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-06 12:07:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote – and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably influenced far
more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as decided by a pro-EU
Electoral Commission.
"Purportedly"

We know how much they spent, we know what the limit was and we know they shuffled money about to avoid having to report spending properly, but most of all we know they spent well more than their limit.

Still no jury for the Aaron Banks allegations (employing staff on the campaign off its books).


As for the murder of Joe Cox, her killer was an insane right winger. A combination that is frequently not mutually exclusive. I can't see where 'false flag' could come into it.
Pamela
2018-12-06 14:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
I guess we knew this all along. Here are extracts from the
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an
Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached –
enough to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave
converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the
final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-
leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-
challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably
influenced far more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as
decided by a pro-EU Electoral Commission.
"Purportedly"
We know how much they spent, we know what the limit was and we know
they shuffled money about to avoid having to report spending properly,
but most of all we know they spent well more than their limit.
Still no jury for the Aaron Banks allegations (employing staff on the
campaign off its books).
As for the murder of Joe Cox, her killer was an insane right winger.
A combination that is frequently not mutually exclusive. I can't see
where 'false flag' could come into it.
Leave's majority is now looking extremely doubtful. We will be able to
confirm its validity in a second referendum, which I expect Parliament to
call when the House finds it cannot agree on a way forward.

Unlike the last referendum, there should be provisions in the next one
to freeze the process if electoral malpractise is discovered during the
campaign. To be honest, it's hard to see Leave managing to campaign
without breaking the rules or making overtly false promises but I will
keep an open mind.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-06 14:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an
Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached –
enough to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave
converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the
final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-
leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-
challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably
influenced far more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as
decided by a pro-EU Electoral Commission.
"Purportedly"
We know how much they spent, we know what the limit was and we know
they shuffled money about to avoid having to report spending properly,
but most of all we know they spent well more than their limit.
Still no jury for the Aaron Banks allegations (employing staff on the
campaign off its books).
As for the murder of Joe Cox, her killer was an insane right winger.
A combination that is frequently not mutually exclusive. I can't see
where 'false flag' could come into it.
Leave's majority is now looking extremely doubtful. We will be able to
confirm its validity in a second referendum, which I expect Parliament to
call when the House finds it cannot agree on a way forward.
Unlike the last referendum, there should be provisions in the next one
to freeze the process if electoral malpractise is discovered during the
campaign. To be honest, it's hard to see Leave managing to campaign
without breaking the rules or making overtly false promises but I will
keep an open mind.
Last week, there was an in-phoner who impressed the host by suggesting
that a referendum should not be a 'one shot' affair, but instead the
process should be more like the passage of a bill through Parliament, ie
first, second and third readings, and at the various stages providing
the opportunity to re-consider various proposals and amendments as
necessary.
--
Ian
MM
2018-12-07 12:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Leave's majority is now looking extremely doubtful. We will be able to
confirm its validity in a second referendum, which I expect Parliament to
call when the House finds it cannot agree on a way forward.
Elsewhere I posted the following:

Here is an interesting chart:
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-52-48-per-cent-voter-turnout-electoral-register-charts-7399226

(a) Not on the electoral register: 18,099,999
(b) Did not vote: 12,948,018
Remain: 16,141,241
Leave: 17,410,742

How many could Leave muster from (a) and (b)?

How many could Remain muster from (a) and (b)?

Of course, pedants might wish to point out that (a) would have to sign
up first, but I'm just trying to get Brexiters to look at the numbers
for a change, instead of only ever believing porkies from the likes of
Farage and BoJo.

MM
Pamela
2018-12-07 12:12:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Pamela
Leave's majority is now looking extremely doubtful. We will be able
to confirm its validity in a second referendum, which I expect
Parliament to call when the House finds it cannot agree on a way
forward.
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-52-48-
per-cent-voter-turnout-electoral-register-charts-7399226
(a) Not on the electoral register: 18,099,999
(b) Did not vote: 12,948,018
Remain: 16,141,241
Leave: 17,410,742
How many could Leave muster from (a) and (b)?
How many could Remain muster from (a) and (b)?
Of course, pedants might wish to point out that (a) would have to sign
up first, but I'm just trying to get Brexiters to look at the numbers
for a change, instead of only ever believing porkies from the likes of
Farage and BoJo.
MM
Nice clear chart. Brexiteers are fond of inventing rules such as the
majority in the referendum is the only thing that matters.

The referendum is only advisory, so it is the ratio of opinion for and
against which is important because Parliament rules for all the people.

Parliament also rules in the interests of those who didn't or couldn't
vote and that chart shows them too.

Now Parliament has recently got back control of the Brexit process, it
will have the last word in deciding which deal the UK goes for. I love
it when democracy beats pretenders and usurpers.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-07 12:19:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Pamela
Leave's majority is now looking extremely doubtful. We will be able to
confirm its validity in a second referendum, which I expect Parliament to
call when the House finds it cannot agree on a way forward.
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-52-48-per-cent-voter-turnout-electoral-register-charts-7399226
(a) Not on the electoral register: 18,099,999
(b) Did not vote: 12,948,018
Remain: 16,141,241
Leave: 17,410,742
How many could Leave muster from (a) and (b)?
How many could Remain muster from (a) and (b)?
Of course, pedants might wish to point out that (a) would have to sign
up first, but I'm just trying to get Brexiters to look at the numbers
for a change, instead of only ever believing porkies from the likes of
Farage and BoJo.
MM
Really MM - the 18M in a. would have to reach 18 or become British first! OTOH ~1.5M EU citizens registered to vote (i.e. resident) in the UK were disenfranchised in the referendum, although they could vote in local and EU parliamentary elections.
MM
2018-12-08 09:59:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 04:19:34 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Pamela
Leave's majority is now looking extremely doubtful. We will be able to
confirm its validity in a second referendum, which I expect Parliament to
call when the House finds it cannot agree on a way forward.
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-52-48-per-cent-voter-turnout-electoral-register-charts-7399226
(a) Not on the electoral register: 18,099,999
(b) Did not vote: 12,948,018
Remain: 16,141,241
Leave: 17,410,742
How many could Leave muster from (a) and (b)?
How many could Remain muster from (a) and (b)?
Of course, pedants might wish to point out that (a) would have to sign
up first, but I'm just trying to get Brexiters to look at the numbers
for a change, instead of only ever believing porkies from the likes of
Farage and BoJo.
MM
Really MM - the 18M in a. would have to reach 18 or become British first! OTOH ~1.5M EU citizens registered to vote (i.e. resident) in the UK were disenfranchised in the referendum, although they could vote in local and EU parliamentary elections.
Did you forget that many people over 18 simply do not bother to
register?

MM
MM
2018-12-07 11:57:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 04:07:54 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote – and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably influenced far
more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as decided by a pro-EU
Electoral Commission.
"Purportedly"
We know how much they spent, we know what the limit was and we know they shuffled money about to avoid having to report spending properly, but most of all we know they spent well more than their limit.
Still no jury for the Aaron Banks allegations (employing staff on the campaign off its books).
As for the murder of Joe Cox, her killer was an insane right winger. A combination that is frequently not mutually exclusive. I can't see where 'false flag' could come into it.
It's just a Brexiter trying to massage the facts to match the
propaganda.

MM
Pamela
2018-12-06 14:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an
Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough
to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of
the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote – and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-
referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-
void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox
Polls showed Jo Cox's murder had no effect on how people would vote.
What evidence is there that she was murdered as part of a false flag
operation?
Post by Incubus
probably
influenced far more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as
decided by a pro-EU Electoral Commission.
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has done the
calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to Leavers who
rely so much on their thin majority.
abelard
2018-12-06 14:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has done the
calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to Leavers who
rely so much on their thin majority.
oooh missus...the perfessor has done 'calculations'

you really are a card
--
www.abelard.org
pensive hamster
2018-12-06 17:20:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has done the
calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to Leavers who
rely so much on their thin majority.
oooh missus...the perfessor has done 'calculations'
you really are a card
Should you wish to check the calculations, the professor's report is
here:

https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/257136-Expert-report-of-Prof-Howard-FINAL-Signed.pdf

The contrary argument, presumably supported by abelard & Co,
seems to boil down to asserting that some of the various branches
of the Leave campaign spent millions (and allegedly overspent 100s
of thousands) on ineffective digital advertising.

Wonder why they would waste all that money.
JNugent
2018-12-06 17:30:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has done the
calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to Leavers who
rely so much on their thin majority.
oooh missus...the perfessor has done 'calculations'
you really are a card
Should you wish to check the calculations, the professor's report is
https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/257136-Expert-report-of-Prof-Howard-FINAL-Signed.pdf
The contrary argument, presumably supported by abelard & Co,
seems to boil down to asserting that some of the various branches
of the Leave campaign spent millions (and allegedly overspent 100s
of thousands) on ineffective digital advertising.
Wonder why they would waste all that money.
How does the professor know whether (and by how much) anyone was
influenced by the amount of money spent on advertising?

Has he got a formula for it?

If so, he is wasting his talents in academia. He ought to be in Madison
Avenue, fast becoming a billionaire.
Pamela
2018-12-06 17:39:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has
done the calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to
Leavers who rely so much on their thin majority.
oooh missus...the perfessor has done 'calculations'
you really are a card
Should you wish to check the calculations, the professor's report is
https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/
257136-Expert-report-of-Prof-Howard-FINAL-Signed.pdf
The contrary argument, presumably supported by abelard & Co,
seems to boil down to asserting that some of the various branches
of the Leave campaign spent millions (and allegedly overspent 100s
of thousands) on ineffective digital advertising.
Wonder why they would waste all that money.
How does the professor know whether (and by how much) anyone was
influenced by the amount of money spent on advertising?
Has he got a formula for it?
If so, he is wasting his talents in academia. He ought to be in
Madison Avenue, fast becoming a billionaire.
Spoken like a businessman. On the other hand, many academics love the
work they do and are not attracted by the promise of riches elsewhere.
You can attract them only by facilitating more of their academic work.

The prof goes though his method in the document Hamster posted and it
seems detailed enough.

He finishes with "It is important to remember that I have made some
conservative assumptions about measuring the effects". (para.59)
pensive hamster
2018-12-06 17:56:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has done the
calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to Leavers who
rely so much on their thin majority.
oooh missus...the perfessor has done 'calculations'
you really are a card
Should you wish to check the calculations, the professor's report is
https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/257136-Expert-report-of-Prof-Howard-FINAL-Signed.pdf
The contrary argument, presumably supported by abelard & Co,
seems to boil down to asserting that some of the various branches
of the Leave campaign spent millions (and allegedly overspent 100s
of thousands) on ineffective digital advertising.
Wonder why they would waste all that money.
How does the professor know whether (and by how much) anyone was
influenced by the amount of money spent on advertising?
You will have to read his report, particularly part E "Vote Leave’s
digital strategy", to see his methodology and reasoning.

And the corollary to your question is the question "How did the
various branches of the Leave campaign know whether (and by
how much) anyone was influenced by the amount of money they
spent on advertising?"

Perhaps they were just throwing their millions up into thin air and
hoping for the best. Or perhaps not.
Post by JNugent
Has he got a formula for it?
If so, he is wasting his talents in academia. He ought to be in Madison
Avenue, fast becoming a billionaire.
Perhaps the various branches of the Leave campaign did have a
formula for it? What do you think firms like Cambridge Analytica
did?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica
"Cambridge Analytica Ltd (CA) was a British political consulting firm
which combined data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis with
strategic communication during the electoral processes.[5][6]"

What is "data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis" if not a
fancy way of saying "having a formula for it".

Few of the Leave campaigners waste their talents in academia,
some are in Madison Avenue or in related industries, several
seem to be millionaires, maybe the odd billionaire too.
Yellow
2018-12-06 21:46:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has done the
calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to Leavers who
rely so much on their thin majority.
oooh missus...the perfessor has done 'calculations'
you really are a card
Should you wish to check the calculations, the professor's report is
https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/257136-Expert-report-of-Prof-Howard-FINAL-Signed.pdf
The contrary argument, presumably supported by abelard & Co,
seems to boil down to asserting that some of the various branches
of the Leave campaign spent millions (and allegedly overspent 100s
of thousands) on ineffective digital advertising.
Wonder why they would waste all that money.
How does the professor know whether (and by how much) anyone was
influenced by the amount of money spent on advertising?
Has he got a formula for it?
If so, he is wasting his talents in academia. He ought to be in Madison
Avenue, fast becoming a billionaire.
His pdf says he is using "industry standard figures" and these are that
you get a click-through-rate of 10% for ads and that there is a
conversion rate of 10% of those people.

So his claim is therefore that 1 in 100 Facebook users who saw the ads
changed their vote.

I did not spot any link to a source for these "industry standard
figures" as that would be interesting to read.
Pamela
2018-12-06 17:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has done
the calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to
Leavers who rely so much on their thin majority.
oooh missus...the perfessor has done 'calculations'
you really are a card
Should you wish to check the calculations, the professor's report is
https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/
257136-Expert-report-of-Prof-Howard-FINAL-Signed.pdf
The contrary argument, presumably supported by abelard & Co, seems to
boil down to asserting that some of the various branches of the Leave
campaign spent millions (and allegedly overspent 100s of thousands) on
ineffective digital advertising.
Wonder why they would waste all that money.
Useful expert testimony although it's beyond old Abelard. All he can do is
carp and jibe from his bath chair. He won't like the professor's sterling
credentials as they eclipse his own.

"I am the Director of the Oxford Internet Institute, a Professor of
Internet Studies and a Fellow at Balliol College at the University of
Oxford. I am an expert on the impact of new information technologies
on public life. My full academic CV is at Appendix 2. I have held
senior academic appointments at Stanford, Princeton, and Columbia
Universities."
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2018-12-07 04:57:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has done the
calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to Leavers who
rely so much on their thin majority.
oooh missus...the perfessor has done 'calculations'
you really are a card
Should you wish to check the calculations, the professor's report is
https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/257136-Expert
-report-of-Prof-Howard-FINAL-Signed.pdf
The contrary argument, presumably supported by abelard & Co,
seems to boil down to asserting that some of the various branches
of the Leave campaign spent millions (and allegedly overspent 100s
of thousands) on ineffective digital advertising.
The para that brought me up short was:

"It is well known that most voters in elections and referenda make up
their mind in the last few days of a campaign. The same appears to have
been the case in the 2016 EU Referendum."

Really? Where does he get this from? My experience is the exact opposite
(and you can try this test on yourself too). The vast majority of voters
make up their mind long before the election is called, let alone by
polling day, and rarely change it. If anything, I would say this
patterns was even more strongly evident in the EU referendum than in
other polls.
Post by pensive hamster
Wonder why they would waste all that money.
Because in advertising you have to waste a lot of money to get any
results at all. Clever as these people are, they simply don't know what
will work.
--
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Pamela
2018-12-07 15:14:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 04:57 7 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pamela
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has
done the calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to
Leavers who rely so much on their thin majority.
oooh missus...the perfessor has done 'calculations' you really are a
card
Should you wish to check the calculations, the professor's report is
https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/
12/257136-Expert-report-of-Prof-Howard-FINAL-Signed.pdf
The contrary argument, presumably supported by abelard & Co, seems to
boil down to asserting that some of the various branches of the Leave
campaign spent millions (and allegedly overspent 100s of thousands)
on ineffective digital advertising.
"It is well known that most voters in elections and referenda make up
their mind in the last few days of a campaign. The same appears to
have been the case in the 2016 EU Referendum."
Really? Where does he get this from? My experience is the exact
opposite (and you can try this test on yourself too). The vast
majority of voters make up their mind long before the election is
called, let alone by polling day, and rarely change it. If anything, I
would say this patterns was even more strongly evident in the EU
referendum than in other polls.
There can be a large proportion of floating voters. So much so that
parties target their efforts entirely at them and not their own die hard
camps. In the referendum I recall there was a very large proportion
polled in the late days who said they were undecided and some saying
they would decide when they were at the ballot box. Presumably that's
partly due to discussions about false claims, such as £350 billion
saving, which made some voters undecided.
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by pensive hamster
Wonder why they would waste all that money.
Because in advertising you have to waste a lot of money to get any
results at all. Clever as these people are, they simply don't know
what will work.
The bottom line is that alot of money was spend by Leave, more than was
allowed, in order to influence voters.
--
We don't hear much these days from Leavers about how easy and how great
Brexit is going to be. The wheels have come off the Brexit clown car.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-07 16:36:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
There can be a large proportion of floating voters. So much so that
parties target their efforts entirely at them and not their own die hard
camps. In the referendum I recall there was a very large proportion
polled in the late days who said they were undecided and some saying
they would decide when they were at the ballot box. Presumably that's
partly due to discussions about false claims, such as £350 billion
saving, which made some voters undecided.
LBC's Nick Ferrari claims he only made his mind up as he entered the
polling booth - but it's glaringly obvious that he is (and probably
always was) a full-on Brexiteer. Don't even think of phoning in and
suggesting that maybe there should be a second referendum. If you do,
he'll instantly 'go off on one', and start shouting "No no no no NO!".

And Iain Dale isn't much better.
--
Ian
pensive hamster
2018-12-07 16:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
pensive hamster posted
Post by pensive hamster
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
You are speculating but the professor quoted in the article has done the
calculations. I can uunderstand this is unwelcome news to Leavers who
rely so much on their thin majority.
oooh missus...the perfessor has done 'calculations'
you really are a card
Should you wish to check the calculations, the professor's report is
https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/257136-Expert
-report-of-Prof-Howard-FINAL-Signed.pdf
The contrary argument, presumably supported by abelard & Co,
seems to boil down to asserting that some of the various branches
of the Leave campaign spent millions (and allegedly overspent 100s
of thousands) on ineffective digital advertising.
"It is well known that most voters in elections and referenda make up
their mind in the last few days of a campaign. The same appears to have
been the case in the 2016 EU Referendum."
Really? Where does he get this from? My experience is the exact opposite
(and you can try this test on yourself too). The vast majority of voters
make up their mind long before the election is called, let alone by
polling day, and rarely change it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39103972
27 February 2017
'Why has the UK become a nation of political swingers?

'A few days ago, British politics saw a stunning by-election
result in the Cumbrian seat of Copeland.

'After electing Labour MPs for 80 years, voters changed their
minds and elected a Conservative.

'What makes voters do this, and why is swing voting on the rise?

'Back in the 1960s, about 13% of voters would change which
party they voted for, says Dr Jonathan Mellon from Nuffield
College, Oxford.

'In 2015, that was closer to 40%.

"A really large proportion of voters are swingers - and this has
been steadily increasing in each subsequent election," says
Dr Mellon. ...'
If anything, I would say this
patterns was even more strongly evident in the EU referendum than in
other polls.
Post by pensive hamster
Wonder why they would waste all that money.
Because in advertising you have to waste a lot of money to get any
results at all.
Which seems to imply that you accept that they did get some
results from their social media advertising spend.
Clever as these people are, they simply don't know what
will work.
How do you know what they know or don't know?
Yellow
2018-12-06 21:01:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <puat7c$ctd$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign?s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached ? enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote ? and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably influenced far
more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as decided by a pro-EU
Electoral Commission.
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that an
overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two day period,
caused around 800,000 people to change their vote from remain to leave.

Got to love those experts.
Ophelia
2018-12-06 21:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <puat7c$ctd$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign?s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached ? enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote ? and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably influenced far
more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as decided by a pro-EU
Electoral Commission.
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that an
overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two day period,
caused around 800,000 people to change their vote from remain to leave.

Got to love those experts.

==

LOL I love how they just know 'everything'!
James Hammerton
2018-12-06 21:20:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign?s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached ? enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote ? and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably influenced far
more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as decided by a pro-EU
Electoral Commission.
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that an
overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two day period,
caused around 800,000 people to change their vote from remain to leave.
They estimated this on the basis that 80 million people viewed the FB
adverts, which is well above the UK total population let alone those
registered to vote in the referendum!

You may find this interesting:

https://twitter.com/anthonybmasters/status/1070447787974766592

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
A. Filip
2018-12-06 21:46:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Yellow
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that an
overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two day period,
caused around 800,000 people to change their vote from remain to leave.
They estimated this on the basis that 80 million people viewed the FB
adverts, which is well above the UK total population let alone those
registered to vote in the referendum!
https://twitter.com/anthonybmasters/status/1070447787974766592
Who hired the online advertising *genius* ?
400_000 votes a day is so impressive ;-)
--
A. Filip
| Experience, n.: Something you don't get until just after you need it.
| (Olivier)
Yellow
2018-12-06 22:06:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably influenced far
more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as decided by a pro-EU
Electoral Commission.
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that an
overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two day period,
caused around 800,000 people to change their vote from remain to leave.
They estimated this on the basis that 80 million people viewed the FB
adverts, which is well above the UK total population let alone those
registered to vote in the referendum!
Hamster posted a link to the professor's workings which shows where
these figures come from.

What he seems to have done in rough terms is divide the number of people
who viewed the Facebook ads over an 8 day period by the amount of money
spent on Facebook ads for each of those days.

He has then divided the overspend by 8, and multiplied the number of
people who viewed ads by that amount.

So that has given him a figure for the number of people each day who
viewed legally paid for ads.

Next, he said 10% of them would have clicked though and then that 10% of
those would have changed their vote.
Yellow
2018-12-06 22:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably influenced far
more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as decided by a pro-EU
Electoral Commission.
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that an
overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two day period,
caused around 800,000 people to change their vote from remain to leave.
They estimated this on the basis that 80 million people viewed the FB
adverts, which is well above the UK total population let alone those
registered to vote in the referendum!
Hamster posted a link to the professor's workings which shows where
these figures come from.
What he seems to have done in rough terms is divide the number of people
who viewed the Facebook ads over an 8 day period by the amount of money
spent on Facebook ads for each of those days.
He has then divided the overspend by 8, and multiplied the number of
people who viewed ads by that amount.
So that has given him a figure for the number of people each day who
viewed legally paid for ads.
Next, he said 10% of them would have clicked though and then that 10% of
those would have changed their vote.
Thinking further....

But if course, as pointed out, 80 million is larger than the UK
population, including under 18s - therefore these views and click
throughs could not all have been from unique individuals are there are
not enough unique individuals available.

So even if his claim that 10% of views of ads result in a click through,
we do *not* know how many of those click throughs were unique.

That rather blows his boat out of the water I'd have thought.
pensive hamster
2018-12-06 22:40:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Yellow
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably influenced far
more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as decided by a pro-EU
Electoral Commission.
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that an
overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two day period,
caused around 800,000 people to change their vote from remain to leave.
They estimated this on the basis that 80 million people viewed the FB
adverts, which is well above the UK total population let alone those
registered to vote in the referendum!
Hamster posted a link to the professor's workings which shows where
these figures come from.
What he seems to have done in rough terms is divide the number of people
who viewed the Facebook ads over an 8 day period by the amount of money
spent on Facebook ads for each of those days.
He has then divided the overspend by 8, and multiplied the number of
people who viewed ads by that amount.
So that has given him a figure for the number of people each day who
viewed legally paid for ads.
Next, he said 10% of them would have clicked though and then that 10% of
those would have changed their vote.
Thinking further....
But if course, as pointed out, 80 million is larger than the UK
population, including under 18s - therefore these views and click
throughs could not all have been from unique individuals are there are
not enough unique individuals available.
That seems to depend on an assumption that only British people
view Facebook ads.

It seems possible that some British voters may have been influenced
by, for example, American Facebook viewers supporting Brexit,
commending the plucky Brits for taking their country back, etc.

But my main assumption is that organisations such as Cambridge
Analytica, and groups which hire such organisations, have a pretty
good idea about how to effectively target opinion influencers through
social media. That is their whole raison d'etre.
Post by Yellow
So even if his claim that 10% of views of ads result in a click through,
we do *not* know how many of those click throughs were unique.
That rather blows his boat out of the water I'd have thought.
Yellow
2018-12-07 11:47:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Post by Yellow
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably influenced far
more people than a purportedly illegal overspend as decided by a pro-EU
Electoral Commission.
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that an
overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two day period,
caused around 800,000 people to change their vote from remain to leave.
They estimated this on the basis that 80 million people viewed the FB
adverts, which is well above the UK total population let alone those
registered to vote in the referendum!
Hamster posted a link to the professor's workings which shows where
these figures come from.
What he seems to have done in rough terms is divide the number of people
who viewed the Facebook ads over an 8 day period by the amount of money
spent on Facebook ads for each of those days.
He has then divided the overspend by 8, and multiplied the number of
people who viewed ads by that amount.
So that has given him a figure for the number of people each day who
viewed legally paid for ads.
Next, he said 10% of them would have clicked though and then that 10% of
those would have changed their vote.
Thinking further....
But if course, as pointed out, 80 million is larger than the UK
population, including under 18s - therefore these views and click
throughs could not all have been from unique individuals are there are
not enough unique individuals available.
That seems to depend on an assumption that only British people
view Facebook ads.
The professor's evidence is with respect to UK Facebook users only.
Post by pensive hamster
It seems possible that some British voters may have been influenced
by, for example, American Facebook viewers supporting Brexit,
commending the plucky Brits for taking their country back, etc.
The professor's evidence is with respect to the affect ads paid for out
of Leave's over spend only.
Post by pensive hamster
But my main assumption is that organisations such as Cambridge
Analytica, and groups which hire such organisations, have a pretty
good idea about how to effectively target opinion influencers through
social media. That is their whole raison d'etre.
And if the ads were indeed targeted then the pool of people who saw them
reduces further, making the claim they were viewed by 80 million
individuals even more daft.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
So even if his claim that 10% of views of ads result in a click through,
we do *not* know how many of those click throughs were unique.
That rather blows his boat out of the water I'd have thought.
Have a look at the twitter posts linked to elsewhere in this thread as
the chap makes some interesting observation about the Professor's
workings.
Pamela
2018-12-07 12:22:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Post by Yellow
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/
vote-leave-referendum-over spending-high-court-
brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-
a8668771.html
On the other hand, the false flag killing of Jo Cox probably
influenced far more people than a purportedly illegal
overspend as decided by a pro-EU Electoral Commission.
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that
an overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two
day period, caused around 800,000 people to change their vote
from remain to leave.
They estimated this on the basis that 80 million people viewed
the FB adverts, which is well above the UK total population let
alone those registered to vote in the referendum!
Hamster posted a link to the professor's workings which shows
where these figures come from.
What he seems to have done in rough terms is divide the number of
people who viewed the Facebook ads over an 8 day period by the
amount of money spent on Facebook ads for each of those days.
He has then divided the overspend by 8, and multiplied the number
of people who viewed ads by that amount.
So that has given him a figure for the number of people each day
who viewed legally paid for ads.
Next, he said 10% of them would have clicked though and then that
10% of those would have changed their vote.
Thinking further....
But if course, as pointed out, 80 million is larger than the UK
population, including under 18s - therefore these views and click
throughs could not all have been from unique individuals are there
are not enough unique individuals available.
That seems to depend on an assumption that only British people
view Facebook ads.
The professor's evidence is with respect to UK Facebook users only.
Post by pensive hamster
It seems possible that some British voters may have been influenced
by, for example, American Facebook viewers supporting Brexit,
commending the plucky Brits for taking their country back, etc.
The professor's evidence is with respect to the affect ads paid for
out of Leave's over spend only.
Post by pensive hamster
But my main assumption is that organisations such as Cambridge
Analytica, and groups which hire such organisations, have a pretty
good idea about how to effectively target opinion influencers through
social media. That is their whole raison d'etre.
And if the ads were indeed targeted then the pool of people who saw
them reduces further, making the claim they were viewed by 80 million
individuals even more daft.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
So even if his claim that 10% of views of ads result in a click
through, we do *not* know how many of those click throughs were
unique.
That rather blows his boat out of the water I'd have thought.
Have a look at the twitter posts linked to elsewhere in this thread as
the chap makes some interesting observation about the Professor's
workings.
I see your mistake. The report says:

"8.05 million people on average reached per day by Facebook ads per
day for ten days."

It does not say each viewing is by a diferent person. It is you who has
made that assumption.
pensive hamster
2018-12-07 15:58:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, 7 December 2018 11:47:29 UTC, Yellow wrote:
[]...]
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
But if course, as pointed out, 80 million is larger than the UK
population, including under 18s - therefore these views and click
throughs could not all have been from unique individuals are there are
not enough unique individuals available.
That seems to depend on an assumption that only British people
view Facebook ads.
The professor's evidence is with respect to UK Facebook users only.
I seem to have missed that. Where does it say that?
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
It seems possible that some British voters may have been influenced
by, for example, American Facebook viewers supporting Brexit,
commending the plucky Brits for taking their country back, etc.
The professor's evidence is with respect to the affect ads paid for out
of Leave's over spend only.
Post by pensive hamster
But my main assumption is that organisations such as Cambridge
Analytica, and groups which hire such organisations, have a pretty
good idea about how to effectively target opinion influencers through
social media. That is their whole raison d'etre.
And if the ads were indeed targeted then the pool of people who saw them
reduces further, making the claim they were viewed by 80 million
individuals even more daft.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
So even if his claim that 10% of views of ads result in a click through,
we do *not* know how many of those click throughs were unique.
That rather blows his boat out of the water I'd have thought.
Have a look at the twitter posts linked to elsewhere in this thread as
the chap makes some interesting observation about the Professor's
workings.
Joe
2018-12-07 13:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:06:20 -0000
Post by Yellow
Next, he said 10% of them would have clicked though and then that 10%
of those would have changed their vote.
And it's this bit that just *might* be open to argument. I don't
believe that the real-world people who actual place digital ads for
products for their living would back him up.

On the basis of a Pound a vote, Hillary Clinton bought the entire USA
electorate many times over. Remind me again how successful she was.

How likely would the professor himself have been to vote the other way
than he did on the basis of an advertisement placed by, as far as he is
concerned, the opposition? We won't get much of an answer to that, I
suspect. The media would not be permitted to publicly ask the question.

So stand up, MM, Ian, Pamela and the rest. You're here and available.
What kind of advertisement would it have taken to have persuaded *you*
to vote Leave?
--
Joe
Pamela
2018-12-07 14:08:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:06:20 -0000
Post by Yellow
Next, he said 10% of them would have clicked though and then that 10%
of those would have changed their vote.
And it's this bit that just *might* be open to argument. I don't
believe that the real-world people who actual place digital ads for
products for their living would back him up.
On the basis of a Pound a vote, Hillary Clinton bought the entire USA
electorate many times over. Remind me again how successful she was.
How likely would the professor himself have been to vote the other way
than he did on the basis of an advertisement placed by, as far as he is
concerned, the opposition? We won't get much of an answer to that, I
suspect. The media would not be permitted to publicly ask the question.
So stand up, MM, Ian, Pamela and the rest. You're here and available.
What kind of advertisement would it have taken to have persuaded *you*
to vote Leave?
Don't forget a majority of the voters did vote for Hillary Clinton.
Buying influence in the US election does not translate to the UK as
politics and voter habits are significantly different.

The bottom line is the professor's analaysis has been accepted by the court
as an valid expert opinion and that's usually good enough for everyone.
Except hardline Brexiteers who, like Trump's voters, are desperate to cling
on to a narrow win which favours them despite very serious concerns about
its legitimacy.
Joe
2018-12-07 15:48:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 14:08:23 GMT
Post by Pamela
The bottom line is the professor's analaysis has been accepted by the
court as an valid expert opinion and that's usually good enough for
everyone.
Except hardline Brexiteers who, like Trump's voters, are
desperate to cling on to a narrow win which favours them despite very
serious concerns about its legitimacy.
And also except for those who think for themselves, rather than
outsourcing it.

Where do you stand on the 80 million? Oh, and what would it take to
have convinced *you* to vote 'Leave'?
--
Joe
Pamela
2018-12-07 17:41:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 14:08:23 GMT
Post by Pamela
The bottom line is the professor's analaysis has been accepted by the
court as an valid expert opinion and that's usually good enough for
everyone.
Except hardline Brexiteers who, like Trump's voters, are
desperate to cling on to a narrow win which favours them despite very
serious concerns about its legitimacy.
And also except for those who think for themselves, rather than
outsourcing it.
Where do you stand on the 80 million? Oh, and what would it take to
have convinced *you* to vote 'Leave'?
Regarding the 80 million, see my message in this thread:
MID: <***@81.171.92.183>

If there was an overall net advantage to leaving then that would have been
enough to convince me.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-07 16:22:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
So stand up, MM, Ian, Pamela and the rest. You're here and available.
What kind of advertisement would it have taken to have persuaded *you*
to vote Leave?
It would have taken a pretty powerful argument to have persuaded me to
Leave. I don't think that's simply because I am bone-headed, but instead
it's that I have personally experienced every stage in the EU from there
barely being a Common Market to what we have now.

Each stage has brought various advantages and disadvantages - with the
former generally substantially outweighing the latter. [But note that I
do appreciate that for some this has been maybe a life-changing
situation - particularly for some of those who were actually doing the
fishing.]

However, unlike some, I can usually distinguish between those 'nasty
things' that are directly or in part because of our EU membership (of
which there are certainly a few), and the many which have absolutely no
connection whatsoever, and are often due to governmental policies and
their 'austerity' programme. So while the EU might be far from perfect,
it's certainly not always the faceless unaccountable monster that many
people have been conned into believing it is.
--
Ian
Joe
2018-12-07 16:39:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:22:05 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
So stand up, MM, Ian, Pamela and the rest. You're here and available.
What kind of advertisement would it have taken to have persuaded
*you* to vote Leave?
It would have taken a pretty powerful argument to have persuaded me
to Leave. I don't think that's simply because I am bone-headed, but
instead it's that I have personally experienced every stage in the EU
from there barely being a Common Market to what we have now.
So what makes you different from the alleged 800,000 Remainers who
instead voted Leave on the basis of an advertisement? Most of the Leave
voters, we are told, were not youngsters, so it isn't just experience
of the EU.
--
Joe
Pamela
2018-12-07 17:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:22:05 +0000
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
So stand up, MM, Ian, Pamela and the rest. You're here and available.
What kind of advertisement would it have taken to have persuaded
*you* to vote Leave?
It would have taken a pretty powerful argument to have persuaded me
to Leave. I don't think that's simply because I am bone-headed, but
instead it's that I have personally experienced every stage in the EU
from there barely being a Common Market to what we have now.
So what makes you different from the alleged 800,000 Remainers who
instead voted Leave on the basis of an advertisement? Most of the Leave
voters, we are told, were not youngsters, so it isn't just experience
of the EU.
Swing voters need just a little push and they go one way rather than the
other.

You must have heard the news about Cambridge Analytica helping target the
false stories provided by Russian Internet propaganda teams to denigrate
American political figures and influence voters like that. Other platforms
were used too. You don't need to wait for the Mueller report to know about
this.
Yellow
2018-12-07 18:25:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
So stand up, MM, Ian, Pamela and the rest. You're here and available.
What kind of advertisement would it have taken to have persuaded *you*
to vote Leave?
It would have taken a pretty powerful argument to have persuaded me to
Leave. I don't think that's simply because I am bone-headed, but instead
it's that I have personally experienced every stage in the EU from there
barely being a Common Market to what we have now.
Each stage has brought various advantages and disadvantages - with the
former generally substantially outweighing the latter. [But note that I
do appreciate that for some this has been maybe a life-changing
situation - particularly for some of those who were actually doing the
fishing.]
However, unlike some, I can usually distinguish between those 'nasty
things' that are directly or in part because of our EU membership (of
which there are certainly a few), and the many which have absolutely no
connection whatsoever, and are often due to governmental policies and
their 'austerity' programme. So while the EU might be far from perfect,
it's certainly not always the faceless unaccountable monster that many
people have been conned into believing it is.
As you, like me, have a brain in your head you too must have seen the
800,000 figure and though "that is beyond credibility" and this would
have prompted you to did deeper.

This is what my digging has uncovered.

The expert claimed in court that 1 in 100 would changed their vote after
clicking on a Leave advert, but the figures presented in his paper
(which Hamster posted a link to) do not match the conclusion presented
in court and that has been reported in the papers.

The workings say that for a given advert 10% who see it will click
through, 10%of those will believe the claim and 10% of those will have
changed their vote.

So of the 80 million in fact only 80,000 would have changed their vote,
not 800,000 as the executive summary says.

Also, this expert has written a book (which is how come he been given
expert status) and in that he claims that the conversion rate on
political ads is 1%, not 10%, so that brings us down to 8,000 who
changed their vote from Remain to Leave.

If we then look again at the 80 million figure, a number which assumes
all the click throughs are by individual UK voters, which of course is
impossible as there are only around 45 million voters and far fewer of
those have Facebook accounts, we can knock that 8,000 down to 4,500
voters and then down again to maybe a couple of thousand tops.

And finally, there is his claimed click though rate of 10% on Facebook
banner ads, which is hugely disputed and a figure of 1% or 2% is being
banded about. That would know our couple of thousand down to a couple of
hundred.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-07 19:52:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
So stand up, MM, Ian, Pamela and the rest. You're here and available.
What kind of advertisement would it have taken to have persuaded *you*
to vote Leave?
It would have taken a pretty powerful argument to have persuaded me to
Leave. I don't think that's simply because I am bone-headed, but instead
it's that I have personally experienced every stage in the EU from there
barely being a Common Market to what we have now.
Each stage has brought various advantages and disadvantages - with the
former generally substantially outweighing the latter. [But note that I
do appreciate that for some this has been maybe a life-changing
situation - particularly for some of those who were actually doing the
fishing.]
However, unlike some, I can usually distinguish between those 'nasty
things' that are directly or in part because of our EU membership (of
which there are certainly a few), and the many which have absolutely no
connection whatsoever, and are often due to governmental policies and
their 'austerity' programme. So while the EU might be far from perfect,
it's certainly not always the faceless unaccountable monster that many
people have been conned into believing it is.
As you, like me, have a brain in your head you too must have seen the
800,000 figure and though "that is beyond credibility" and this would
have prompted you to did deeper.
This is what my digging has uncovered.
The expert claimed in court that 1 in 100 would changed their vote after
clicking on a Leave advert, but the figures presented in his paper
(which Hamster posted a link to) do not match the conclusion presented
in court and that has been reported in the papers.
The workings say that for a given advert 10% who see it will click
through, 10%of those will believe the claim and 10% of those will have
changed their vote.
So of the 80 million in fact only 80,000 would have changed their vote,
not 800,000 as the executive summary says.
Also, this expert has written a book (which is how come he been given
expert status) and in that he claims that the conversion rate on
political ads is 1%, not 10%, so that brings us down to 8,000 who
changed their vote from Remain to Leave.
If we then look again at the 80 million figure, a number which assumes
all the click throughs are by individual UK voters, which of course is
impossible as there are only around 45 million voters and far fewer of
those have Facebook accounts, we can knock that 8,000 down to 4,500
voters and then down again to maybe a couple of thousand tops.
And finally, there is his claimed click though rate of 10% on Facebook
banner ads, which is hugely disputed and a figure of 1% or 2% is being
banded about. That would know our couple of thousand down to a couple of
hundred.
All this estimation of how folks would voted because of (or,
alternatively, if they had not seen or heard) certain propaganda is
highly speculative. [It rather reminds me of the Pools Panel that
estimates the bad weather results of football matches.]

Rather than waste a lot of time and money trying to guesstimate how much
the apparent cheating by some of those championing the Brexit cause, why
don't we simply accept the decision of the majority?

However, in the light of all the malarkey of the past thirty months,
should we now also accept that it was probably a bad decision, and that
its real consequences need to be re-assessed - and the first step is to
look at some of the recent opinion polls. While far from perfect, these
are showing that an increasing percentage of those questioned are at
least dissatisfied with the original result, and of the way the
government is going about implementing it. The well-worn mantra that
"That was the will of the people, and must be respected at all costs"
simply doesn't hold water - but the only way to find out for certain
would be ask the people to either confirm their original decision, or to
indicate that they have changed their mind.
--
Ian
Yellow
2018-12-08 02:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
So stand up, MM, Ian, Pamela and the rest. You're here and available.
What kind of advertisement would it have taken to have persuaded *you*
to vote Leave?
It would have taken a pretty powerful argument to have persuaded me to
Leave. I don't think that's simply because I am bone-headed, but instead
it's that I have personally experienced every stage in the EU from there
barely being a Common Market to what we have now.
Each stage has brought various advantages and disadvantages - with the
former generally substantially outweighing the latter. [But note that I
do appreciate that for some this has been maybe a life-changing
situation - particularly for some of those who were actually doing the
fishing.]
However, unlike some, I can usually distinguish between those 'nasty
things' that are directly or in part because of our EU membership (of
which there are certainly a few), and the many which have absolutely no
connection whatsoever, and are often due to governmental policies and
their 'austerity' programme. So while the EU might be far from perfect,
it's certainly not always the faceless unaccountable monster that many
people have been conned into believing it is.
As you, like me, have a brain in your head you too must have seen the
800,000 figure and though "that is beyond credibility" and this would
have prompted you to did deeper.
This is what my digging has uncovered.
The expert claimed in court that 1 in 100 would changed their vote after
clicking on a Leave advert, but the figures presented in his paper
(which Hamster posted a link to) do not match the conclusion presented
in court and that has been reported in the papers.
The workings say that for a given advert 10% who see it will click
through, 10%of those will believe the claim and 10% of those will have
changed their vote.
So of the 80 million in fact only 80,000 would have changed their vote,
not 800,000 as the executive summary says.
Also, this expert has written a book (which is how come he been given
expert status) and in that he claims that the conversion rate on
political ads is 1%, not 10%, so that brings us down to 8,000 who
changed their vote from Remain to Leave.
If we then look again at the 80 million figure, a number which assumes
all the click throughs are by individual UK voters, which of course is
impossible as there are only around 45 million voters and far fewer of
those have Facebook accounts, we can knock that 8,000 down to 4,500
voters and then down again to maybe a couple of thousand tops.
And finally, there is his claimed click though rate of 10% on Facebook
banner ads, which is hugely disputed and a figure of 1% or 2% is being
banded about. That would know our couple of thousand down to a couple of
hundred.
All this estimation of how folks would voted because of (or,
alternatively, if they had not seen or heard) certain propaganda is
highly speculative. [It rather reminds me of the Pools Panel that
estimates the bad weather results of football matches.]
Rather than waste a lot of time and money trying to guesstimate how much
the apparent cheating by some of those championing the Brexit cause, why
don't we simply accept the decision of the majority?
However, in the light of all the malarkey of the past thirty months,
should we now also accept that it was probably a bad decision, and that
its real consequences need to be re-assessed - and the first step is to
look at some of the recent opinion polls. While far from perfect, these
are showing that an increasing percentage of those questioned are at
least dissatisfied with the original result, and of the way the
government is going about implementing it. The well-worn mantra that
"That was the will of the people, and must be respected at all costs"
simply doesn't hold water - but the only way to find out for certain
would be ask the people to either confirm their original decision, or to
indicate that they have changed their mind.
I agree there is a growing dissatisfaction but it is not with the result
of the referendum and instead it is squarely with what has happened
since the referendum, the way it has been handled - which is
disgracefully.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-08 08:33:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
So stand up, MM, Ian, Pamela and the rest. You're here and available.
What kind of advertisement would it have taken to have persuaded *you*
to vote Leave?
It would have taken a pretty powerful argument to have persuaded me to
Leave. I don't think that's simply because I am bone-headed, but instead
it's that I have personally experienced every stage in the EU from there
barely being a Common Market to what we have now.
Each stage has brought various advantages and disadvantages - with the
former generally substantially outweighing the latter. [But note that I
do appreciate that for some this has been maybe a life-changing
situation - particularly for some of those who were actually doing the
fishing.]
However, unlike some, I can usually distinguish between those 'nasty
things' that are directly or in part because of our EU membership (of
which there are certainly a few), and the many which have absolutely no
connection whatsoever, and are often due to governmental policies and
their 'austerity' programme. So while the EU might be far from perfect,
it's certainly not always the faceless unaccountable monster that many
people have been conned into believing it is.
As you, like me, have a brain in your head you too must have seen the
800,000 figure and though "that is beyond credibility" and this would
have prompted you to did deeper.
This is what my digging has uncovered.
The expert claimed in court that 1 in 100 would changed their vote after
clicking on a Leave advert, but the figures presented in his paper
(which Hamster posted a link to) do not match the conclusion presented
in court and that has been reported in the papers.
The workings say that for a given advert 10% who see it will click
through, 10%of those will believe the claim and 10% of those will have
changed their vote.
So of the 80 million in fact only 80,000 would have changed their vote,
not 800,000 as the executive summary says.
Also, this expert has written a book (which is how come he been given
expert status) and in that he claims that the conversion rate on
political ads is 1%, not 10%, so that brings us down to 8,000 who
changed their vote from Remain to Leave.
If we then look again at the 80 million figure, a number which assumes
all the click throughs are by individual UK voters, which of course is
impossible as there are only around 45 million voters and far fewer of
those have Facebook accounts, we can knock that 8,000 down to 4,500
voters and then down again to maybe a couple of thousand tops.
And finally, there is his claimed click though rate of 10% on Facebook
banner ads, which is hugely disputed and a figure of 1% or 2% is being
banded about. That would know our couple of thousand down to a couple of
hundred.
All this estimation of how folks would voted because of (or,
alternatively, if they had not seen or heard) certain propaganda is
highly speculative. [It rather reminds me of the Pools Panel that
estimates the bad weather results of football matches.]
Rather than waste a lot of time and money trying to guesstimate how much
the apparent cheating by some of those championing the Brexit cause, why
don't we simply accept the decision of the majority?
However, in the light of all the malarkey of the past thirty months,
should we now also accept that it was probably a bad decision, and that
its real consequences need to be re-assessed - and the first step is to
look at some of the recent opinion polls. While far from perfect, these
are showing that an increasing percentage of those questioned are at
least dissatisfied with the original result, and of the way the
government is going about implementing it. The well-worn mantra that
"That was the will of the people, and must be respected at all costs"
simply doesn't hold water - but the only way to find out for certain
would be ask the people to either confirm their original decision, or to
indicate that they have changed their mind.
I agree there is a growing dissatisfaction but it is not with the result
of the referendum and instead it is squarely with what has happened
since the referendum, the way it has been handled - which is
disgracefully.
If The People really ARE still satisfied with the result, in a second
referendum they will vote the same as in the first (and there might even
be an increased majority). That would be a quick and efficient way of
ending all this argument. What's not to like?
--
Ian
Col
2018-12-08 09:06:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
If The People really ARE still satisfied with the result, in a second
referendum they will vote the same as in the first (and there might even
be an increased majority). That would be a quick and efficient way of
ending all this argument. What's not to like?
For all the pompous guff about 'the will of the people', the real reason
Brexiteers don't want a 2nd referendum is that they fear they will lose
this time round.
--
Col
Ian Jackson
2018-12-08 11:05:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Ian Jackson
If The People really ARE still satisfied with the result, in a
second referendum they will vote the same as in the first (and there
might even be an increased majority). That would be a quick and
efficient way of ending all this argument. What's not to like?
For all the pompous guff about 'the will of the people', the real
reason Brexiteers don't want a 2nd referendum is that they fear they
will lose this time round.
Another reason that is raising now its head is that a different result
could well lead to civil unrest (a la mode francaise). Several
in-phoners have been threatening this, and at least a couple of LBC
hosts have shown little sign of disapproval and discouragement. The
message is quite clear - "Disrespect us, and we'll riot".
--
Ian
Pamela
2018-12-08 11:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
So stand up, MM, Ian, Pamela and the rest. You're here and
available. What kind of advertisement would it have taken to
have persuaded *you* to vote Leave?
It would have taken a pretty powerful argument to have persuaded
me to Leave. I don't think that's simply because I am
bone-headed, but instead it's that I have personally experienced
every stage in the EU from there barely being a Common Market to
what we have now.
Each stage has brought various advantages and disadvantages -
with the former generally substantially outweighing the latter.
[But note that I do appreciate that for some this has been maybe
a life-changing situation - particularly for some of those who
were actually doing the fishing.]
However, unlike some, I can usually distinguish between those
'nasty things' that are directly or in part because of our EU
membership (of which there are certainly a few), and the many
which have absolutely no connection whatsoever, and are often due
to governmental policies and their 'austerity' programme. So
while the EU might be far from perfect, it's certainly not always
the faceless unaccountable monster that many people have been
conned into believing it is.
As you, like me, have a brain in your head you too must have seen
the 800,000 figure and though "that is beyond credibility" and this
would have prompted you to did deeper.
This is what my digging has uncovered.
The expert claimed in court that 1 in 100 would changed their vote
after clicking on a Leave advert, but the figures presented in his
paper (which Hamster posted a link to) do not match the conclusion
presented in court and that has been reported in the papers.
The workings say that for a given advert 10% who see it will click
through, 10%of those will believe the claim and 10% of those will
have changed their vote.
So of the 80 million in fact only 80,000 would have changed their
vote, not 800,000 as the executive summary says.
Also, this expert has written a book (which is how come he been
given expert status) and in that he claims that the conversion rate
on political ads is 1%, not 10%, so that brings us down to 8,000
who changed their vote from Remain to Leave.
If we then look again at the 80 million figure, a number which
assumes all the click throughs are by individual UK voters, which
of course is impossible as there are only around 45 million voters
and far fewer of those have Facebook accounts, we can knock that
8,000 down to 4,500 voters and then down again to maybe a couple of
thousand tops.
And finally, there is his claimed click though rate of 10% on
Facebook banner ads, which is hugely disputed and a figure of 1% or
2% is being banded about. That would know our couple of thousand
down to a couple of hundred.
All this estimation of how folks would voted because of (or,
alternatively, if they had not seen or heard) certain propaganda is
highly speculative. [It rather reminds me of the Pools Panel that
estimates the bad weather results of football matches.]
Rather than waste a lot of time and money trying to guesstimate how
much the apparent cheating by some of those championing the Brexit
cause, why don't we simply accept the decision of the majority?
However, in the light of all the malarkey of the past thirty months,
should we now also accept that it was probably a bad decision, and
that its real consequences need to be re-assessed - and the first
step is to look at some of the recent opinion polls. While far from
perfect, these are showing that an increasing percentage of those
questioned are at least dissatisfied with the original result, and
of the way the government is going about implementing it. The
well-worn mantra that "That was the will of the people, and must be
respected at all costs" simply doesn't hold water - but the only way
to find out for certain would be ask the people to either confirm
their original decision, or to indicate that they have changed their
mind.
I agree there is a growing dissatisfaction but it is not with the
result of the referendum and instead it is squarely with what has
happened since the referendum, the way it has been handled - which is
disgracefully.
If The People really ARE still satisfied with the result, in a second
referendum they will vote the same as in the first (and there might
even be an increased majority). That would be a quick and efficient
way of ending all this argument. What's not to like?
It's hard to see why the negotiators should be blamed because they did
the very best they could given their ridiculous mandate.

The whole nonsense of Brexit was flawed from the very beginning. The
idea of leaving was nuts and the dreams were nuttier.

Another referendum should set this right.
abelard
2018-12-08 13:21:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
I agree there is a growing dissatisfaction but it is not with the result
of the referendum and instead it is squarely with what has happened
since the referendum, the way it has been handled - which is
disgracefully.
they are fanatics who wish to over ride democracy...

the range of creativity exercised to that objective is impressive!
--
www.abelard.org
Yellow
2018-12-06 22:35:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
https://twitter.com/anthonybmasters/status/1070447787974766592
Just been reading it and I did, very, so thanks.
pensive hamster
2018-12-06 22:52:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
jameshammerton says...
Post by James Hammerton
https://twitter.com/anthonybmasters/status/1070447787974766592
Just been reading it and I did, very, so thanks.
This comment, near the end, was interesting:

Geoff Walker #FBPE #MVM #PropRep @TootlinGeoff
9h9 hours ago

"This graph seems to me indicative. Look at the sudden surge
towards leave in the last few days. This surge coincides with
placing these ads only seen by those targeted."

[graph]
Joe
2018-12-06 22:08:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:01:57 -0000
Post by Yellow
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that an
overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two day
period, caused around 800,000 people to change their vote from remain
to leave.
Got to love those experts.
We might reasonably ask for proof of this, or at least objective
evidence. This looks suspiciously like Yet Another Remainer Lie.
--
Joe
Yellow
2018-12-06 22:32:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:01:57 -0000
Post by Yellow
If I read the article correctly, this expert is claiming that an
overspend of around £800,000 on on-line adverts over a two day
period, caused around 800,000 people to change their vote from remain
to leave.
Got to love those experts.
We might reasonably ask for proof of this, or at least objective
evidence. This looks suspiciously like Yet Another Remainer Lie.
What it looks like is very similar to the wheeze where GDP was divided
by the number of households. A figure is banded about that anyone who
thinks about it knows cannot be right but is not in an easy position to
argue against.
MM
2018-12-06 12:04:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote – and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Very interesting! Let's hope this one's got legs. I also hope Labour
is not asleep as it usually is.

MM
Nightjar
2018-12-08 09:29:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote – and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Very interesting! Let's hope this one's got legs. I also hope Labour
is not asleep as it usually is.
One counter argument to the case is that the referendum was not legally
binding, so the Article 50 notification was a choice by the government,
not a legal requirement, hence the High Court has no power to reverse it.
--
--

Colin Bignell
MM
2018-12-08 10:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nightjar
Post by MM
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote – and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Very interesting! Let's hope this one's got legs. I also hope Labour
is not asleep as it usually is.
One counter argument to the case is that the referendum was not legally
binding, so the Article 50 notification was a choice by the government,
not a legal requirement, hence the High Court has no power to reverse it.
But a new government, e.g. Labour, could?

MM
Nightjar
2018-12-08 16:56:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by MM
Post by Nightjar
Post by MM
Post by Pamela
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Very interesting! Let's hope this one's got legs. I also hope Labour
is not asleep as it usually is.
One counter argument to the case is that the referendum was not legally
binding, so the Article 50 notification was a choice by the government,
not a legal requirement, hence the High Court has no power to reverse it.
But a new government, e.g. Labour, could?
Even the existing government could reverse it, but they would almost
certainly need to hold another referendum to justify doing that. We will
see what happens if (or more probably when) the Brexit deal gets voted down.
--
--

Colin Bignell
Paul Pot
2018-12-06 17:34:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an
Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough
to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of
the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote – and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Pamela
2018-12-06 17:41:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an
Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign's digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached –
enough to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of
the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-
referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-
void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
That did not break the law by overspending. On the other hand, Leave did.
pensive hamster
2018-12-06 18:00:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an
Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough
to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of
the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote – and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Paul Pot
2018-12-06 21:06:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Pamela
I guess we knew this all along. Here are extracts from the
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to
an Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached –
enough to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave
converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the
final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote – and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Unfair advantage.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
pensive hamster
2018-12-06 22:26:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by Paul Pot
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Unfair advantage.
Unfair advantage to which side, though? There are reports
that some people voted Leave as a protest against the
establishment, against the metropolitan elite.

The fact that the establishment (Cameron, most "experts", etc.)
recommended Remain, may have given a significant unfair
advantage to the Leave side, because it prompted all the protest
voters to vote against the establishment, and to vote Leave.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/brexit-referendum-protest-london-politicians-reality/

'Leave voters didn’t vote to become poorer – they were protesting,
and they should be heard

'... Britain’s regional voters did not want more of the same. Their
narrow pecuniary interest was completely outweighed by the broad
opportunity to upend the liberal political and economic consensus –
a chance to hold accountable a system which had poorly served
Britain’s regional economies and favoured its capital for decades.'
----------------------------

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vote-regret-voting-leave-brexit

'I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave

etc.
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-12-06 23:00:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:26:23 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Paul Pot
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Unfair advantage.
Unfair advantage to which side, though? There are reports
that some people voted Leave as a protest against the
establishment, against the metropolitan elite.
The fact that the establishment (Cameron, most "experts", etc.)
recommended Remain, may have given a significant unfair
advantage to the Leave side, because it prompted all the protest
voters to vote against the establishment, and to vote Leave.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/brexit-referendum-protest-london-politicians-reality/
The 'establishment' would have been aware of that before they even
sent out the leaflet.
Post by pensive hamster
'Leave voters didn’t vote to become poorer – they were protesting,
and they should be heard
'... Britain’s regional voters did not want more of the same. Their
narrow pecuniary interest was completely outweighed by the broad
opportunity to upend the liberal political and economic consensus –
a chance to hold accountable a system which had poorly served
Britain’s regional economies and favoured its capital for decades.'
----------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vote-regret-voting-leave-brexit
'I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave
etc.
How exactly does that explain those in the 'establishment' who also
voted to leave?
The Peeler
2018-12-06 23:19:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:00:25 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by pensive hamster
Unfair advantage to which side, though? There are reports
that some people voted Leave as a protest against the
establishment, against the metropolitan elite.
The fact that the establishment (Cameron, most "experts", etc.)
recommended Remain, may have given a significant unfair
advantage to the Leave side, because it prompted all the protest
voters to vote against the establishment, and to vote Leave.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/brexit-referendum-protest-london-politicians-reality/
The 'establishment' would have been aware of that before they even
sent out the leaflet.
Obviously not, or they wouldn't have sent it out, idiot!
--
Retarded, anal, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident
psychopath, dumb serbian bitch G. Razovic (aka "The Rectum").
pensive hamster
2018-12-07 16:29:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Paul Pot
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Unfair advantage.
Unfair advantage to which side, though? There are reports
that some people voted Leave as a protest against the
establishment, against the metropolitan elite.
The fact that the establishment (Cameron, most "experts", etc.)
recommended Remain, may have given a significant unfair
advantage to the Leave side, because it prompted all the protest
voters to vote against the establishment, and to vote Leave.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/brexit-referendum-protest-london-politicians-reality/
The 'establishment' would have been aware of that before they even
sent out the leaflet.
I rather doubt that. The establishment, almost by definition,
tends to be complacent, and used to getting their own way.
They tend not to be "in touch with the people", and may well
have underestimated the likely protest vote.
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by pensive hamster
'Leave voters didn’t vote to become poorer – they were protesting,
and they should be heard
'... Britain’s regional voters did not want more of the same. Their
narrow pecuniary interest was completely outweighed by the broad
opportunity to upend the liberal political and economic consensus –
a chance to hold accountable a system which had poorly served
Britain’s regional economies and favoured its capital for decades.'
----------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vote-regret-voting-leave-brexit
'I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave
etc.
How exactly does that explain those in the 'establishment' who also
voted to leave?
Who do you have in mind? Boris, for example, is on the fringes
of the establishment, and may well have voted Leave in the hope
that it would boost his public profile and advance his political
ambitions.

Not all Leave votes were necessarily protest votes, only some
of them.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-07 16:52:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
How exactly does that explain those in the 'establishment' who also
voted to leave?
Who do you have in mind? Boris, for example, is on the fringes
of the establishment, and may well have voted Leave in the hope
that it would boost his public profile and advance his political
ambitions.
Did you not mean 'Remain'? It's said that Boris had prepared speeches
for both Leave AND Remain, so might equally well have voted Remain in
the hope that it would boost his public profile and advance his
political ambitions. [Or was he only ensuring he would come to an
informed decision by making a concise list of the pros and cons of
both?]
Post by pensive hamster
Not all Leave votes were necessarily protest votes, only some
of them.
--
Ian
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-12-07 17:24:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:29:34 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Paul Pot
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Unfair advantage.
Unfair advantage to which side, though? There are reports
that some people voted Leave as a protest against the
establishment, against the metropolitan elite.
The fact that the establishment (Cameron, most "experts", etc.)
recommended Remain, may have given a significant unfair
advantage to the Leave side, because it prompted all the protest
voters to vote against the establishment, and to vote Leave.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/brexit-referendum-protest-london-politicians-reality/
The 'establishment' would have been aware of that before they even
sent out the leaflet.
I rather doubt that. The establishment, almost by definition,
tends to be complacent, and used to getting their own way.
They tend not to be "in touch with the people", and may well
have underestimated the likely protest vote.
The 'establishment' itself may be complacent but they rely on savvy
external think tanks and consultants before making a move like this.

If they had expected a protest vote, then, perhaps they would have
recommended Leave?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by pensive hamster
'Leave voters didn’t vote to become poorer – they were protesting,
and they should be heard
'... Britain’s regional voters did not want more of the same. Their
narrow pecuniary interest was completely outweighed by the broad
opportunity to upend the liberal political and economic consensus –
a chance to hold accountable a system which had poorly served
Britain’s regional economies and favoured its capital for decades.'
----------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vote-regret-voting-leave-brexit
'I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave
etc.
How exactly does that explain those in the 'establishment' who also
voted to leave?
Who do you have in mind? Boris, for example, is on the fringes
of the establishment, and may well have voted Leave in the hope
that it would boost his public profile and advance his political
ambitions.
I was thinking of Rees-Mogg and his band of merry brothers.
You may not consider him 'establishment' but he and his ilk represent
the 'establishment' to the voting public.
Post by pensive hamster
Not all Leave votes were necessarily protest votes, only some
of them.
Enough to swing it?
The Peeler
2018-12-07 18:52:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 09:24:49 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by pensive hamster
I rather doubt that. The establishment, almost by definition,
tends to be complacent, and used to getting their own way.
They tend not to be "in touch with the people", and may well
have underestimated the likely protest vote.
The 'establishment' itself may be complacent but they rely on savvy
external think tanks and consultants before making a move like this.
PROVE that they did so in this case, blithering idiot!
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
If they had expected a protest vote, then, perhaps they would have
recommended Leave?
IDIOT! <tsk>
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
I was thinking
There's your problem! It's obviously your anus that does the "thinking" in
your case, asshole!
--
sully to stinking Goran Razovic, our resident psychopath (aka "The Rectum"):
"frankly you're a dingleberry on usenet's ass"
MID: <be3854ef-b0ea-4bfa-b002-***@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>
MM
2018-12-08 10:08:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:29:34 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
I rather doubt that. The establishment, almost by definition,
tends to be complacent, and used to getting their own way.
They tend not to be "in touch with the people", and may well
have underestimated the likely protest vote.
Case in point: Yesterday, government ministers "fanned out" (in the
words of an overexcited media) across the country to speak to the
public.

At one such encounter,in a hall somewhere, the Prisons Minister, Rory
Stewart, asked his quite large audience, how many of you support
Theresa May's deal, and about four hands went up!

Deathly silence. Rory looked as if he wished the ground would open up
and swallow him. Once the discussion started, he did not win over many
of those present either.

And he is going to return to Westminster and report his experiences to
the PM.

MM
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2018-12-07 06:20:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Paul Pot
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
If it wasn't, it should have been. But of course the golden rule
applied; the people with the gold make the rules.

Fortunately in this case it backfired on them, so they are trying to
change the rules again - retrospectively this time.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Unfair advantage.
Unfair advantage to which side, though? There are reports
that some people voted Leave as a protest against the
establishment, against the metropolitan elite.
The fact that the establishment (Cameron, most "experts", etc.)
recommended Remain, may have given a significant unfair
advantage to the Leave side, because it prompted all the protest
voters to vote against the establishment, and to vote Leave.
That's the feeblest cock and bull excuse for losing that I've ever
heard. You might as well say that it is unfair when a football team
loses a match by scoring an own goal.
--
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Pamela
2018-12-07 12:25:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Paul Pot
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
If it wasn't, it should have been. But of course the golden rule
applied; the people with the gold make the rules.
Fortunately in this case it backfired on them, so they are trying to
change the rules again - retrospectively this time.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Unfair advantage.
Unfair advantage to which side, though? There are reports
that some people voted Leave as a protest against the
establishment, against the metropolitan elite.
The fact that the establishment (Cameron, most "experts", etc.)
recommended Remain, may have given a significant unfair
advantage to the Leave side, because it prompted all the protest
voters to vote against the establishment, and to vote Leave.
That's the feeblest cock and bull excuse for losing that I've ever
heard. You might as well say that it is unfair when a football team
loses a match by scoring an own goal.
The protest vote against Cameron and against the well-off should not be
overlooked. As I recall, a lot of people reported they wanted to give the
governement a kick in the teeth for things like the bedroom tax.
MM
2018-12-07 12:05:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Pot
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Pamela
I guess we knew this all along. Here are extracts from the
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to
an Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached –
enough to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave
converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the
final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote – and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Unfair advantage.
Ah, but Arron Banks' million pound donations to Leave weren't?

MM
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-07 12:20:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Paul Pot
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to
an Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached –
enough to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave
converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the
final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote – and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Unfair advantage.
Ah, but Arron Banks' million pound donations to Leave weren't?
MM
sub judicae I think. He is innocent until proven guilty.
MM
2018-12-08 10:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 04:20:58 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Paul Pot
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to
an Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached –
enough to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave
converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the
final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote – and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Unfair advantage.
Ah, but Arron Banks' million pound donations to Leave weren't?
MM
sub judicae I think. He is innocent until proven guilty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44080096 reported that
"Campaign group Leave.EU has been fined £70,000 for breaches of
election law in the 2016 EU referendum.

"The Electoral Commission said the group - which was separate from the
official pro-Brexit group Vote Leave - failed to report 'at least'
£77,380 it spent."

MM
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-12-06 22:07:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:00:19 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an
Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough
to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of
the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote – and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Probably. Certainly unethical. Any official government communication
regarding the referendum should have been impartial. Didn't work,
though.
The Peeler
2018-12-06 22:46:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:07:50 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Paul Pot
Let's not forget that Cameron sent a pro-EU leaflet to every UK
household paid for by taxpayers. What about that?
Was that illegal?
Probably. Certainly unethical.
YOU abnormal perverted psychopathic swine describing OTHER people's actions
as "unethical"??? YOUUUU, of all people! LMAO
--
sully to stinking Goran Razovic, our resident psychopath (aka "The Rectum"):
"frankly you're a dingleberry on usenet's ass"
MID: <be3854ef-b0ea-4bfa-b002-***@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>
A. Filip
2018-12-06 17:50:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote – and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
So what? Will the court bravely "correct" the result?
--
A. Filip
| The function of the expert is not to be more right than other
| people, but to be wrong for more sophisticated reasons.
| (Dr. David Butler, British psephologist)
pensive hamster
2018-12-06 18:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by A. Filip
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal
overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford
professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes
it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last crucial days,
after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the
outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the
campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its digital
advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign because it had
reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote Leave carried on,
despite busting its limit two days before the vote – and was later
found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-over
spending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771
.html
So what? Will the court bravely "correct" the result?
Presumably the court will attempt to apply the law.

https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/
"... Case Updates: 5th December 2018

"The UK in EU Challenge oral hearing in Royal Courts of Justice on
7th December has been extended to a full day from the normal maximum
of two hours. ..."
-------------------------------------

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-void-high-court-ruling-arron-banks-investigation-when-december-christmas-a8649001.html
24 November 2018
'The High Court will rule as early as Christmas whether Brexit should be
declared “void”, in a legal case given a turbo-boost by the criminal
investigation into Leave funder Arron Banks.

'... Ewan McGaughey, a senior law lecturer at King’s College London,
has written: “The order by the prime minister to trigger Article 50 and
negotiate to leave the EU could be declared void.

“Now, it’s a big thing to litigate the very validity of Brexit. But if Russian
athletes win Olympic medals when they are taking drugs, their victories
are not valid. The same is true of a corrupt vote.”

'One senior Tory told The Independent: “If Arron Banks were to be
charged and found guilty after the police investigation, he could go to
prison. The man who played a big role in securing Brexit could yet help
to destroy it.”

'... Meanwhile, spending by both Leave.EU and the main Vote Leave
campaign, fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, was found by
the Electoral Commission to have broken the law. ...'
Pamela
2018-12-06 19:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by A. Filip
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an
Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign's digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough
to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of
the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-
referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-
void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html
So what? Will the court bravely "correct" the result?
Some MPs will probably use this analysis to support their call for a
second referendum. Seems a reasonable idea.
A. Filip
2018-12-06 20:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by A. Filip
Post by Pamela
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an
Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign's digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough
to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure
victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising
achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative
estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted
the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of
the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-
referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-
void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html
So what? Will the court bravely "correct" the result?
Some MPs will probably use this analysis to support their call for a
second referendum. Seems a reasonable idea.
*So far* it may be simple choice referendum:
Brexit with accepting E.U. deal *OR* hard (deal rejected) Brexit

Everything else is a political shit talk before E.U. court decision if
UK can _unilaterally_ reverse Brexit.
Wait a little for possible reduction of unknown factors.

I *wish* E.U. more Euexits as _standard_ negotiation tactics ;-)

From political perspective the best option for E.U. future may be to:
Allow some E.U. super++ majority to grant UK _short_ time window for
"referendum to cancel". Something UK will be _quite likely_ granted
this time but any future Euexiters would be lucky/unsure+ to get.
--
A. Filip
| A wife lasts only for the length of the marriage, but an ex-wife is
| there *for the rest of your life*. (Jim Samuels)
Joe
2018-12-06 20:43:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 19:32:48 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by A. Filip
Post by Pamela
I guess we knew this all along. Here are extracts from the
It is "very likely" that the UK voted for Brexit because of
illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to
an Oxford professor's evidence to the High Court.
An exhaustive analysis of the campaign's digital strategy
concludes it reached "tens of millions of people" in its last
crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached _
enough to change the outcome.
"A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to
secure victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online
advertising achieved with the excess spending, combined with
conservative estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote
Leave converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in
the final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend."
It points out that the Remain campaign was forced to stop its
digital advertising on the last day of the June 2016 campaign
because it had reached its spending limit. In contrast, Vote
Leave carried on, despite busting its limit two days before the
vote and was later found by the Electoral Commission to have
broken the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-
referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-
void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html
So what? Will the court bravely "correct" the result?
Some MPs will probably use this analysis to support their call for a
second referendum. Seems a reasonable idea.
Funny how nobody makes the point that spending is an input, not an
output. Look at the USA Presidential election a couple of years ago...
--
Joe
Loading...