Sandydragon wrote:
I agree in principle, but I, now very firmly of the opinion that referendums need to be specific. If a new PM can negotiate a new deal with the EU and that can be an option then great. If not, it’s a straight fight between WTO and remain as we are.
I've only just noticed that I've signed that post like it's a letter. Clearly my brain is not willing to believe I'm off work today. You're all very polite for not pointing and laughing at me by the way.
Puja
ha, I thought it was a reference to the Peter Principle, Peter Perfect, Blue Peter or some other Peter I hadn't thought of. Peter Bone, maybe
Nope, just the collapse of my secret identity. Oh well, I wasn't using it for anything anyway.
Puja wrote:
Unfortunately, they've all got something of a point in that the only concrete compromise proposal around is one that's deader than the proverbial dodo. If there were to be a second ref, I know I'd want a third option on the ballot paper, but I haven't got the first clue what it would be anymore.
Yours sincerely,
Peter
I agree in principle, but I, now very firmly of the opinion that referendums need to be specific. If a new PM can negotiate a new deal with the EU and that can be an option then great. If not, it’s a straight fight between WTO and remain as we are.
Ballsy!! It panders to the arch-Brexiteers and means they become the legit leave option, which is not a good place to be.
The current place and any negotiated deal from the next Tory PM are not good places to be either. And really if the country wants a hard Brexit that's their democratic right.
Puja wrote:
I've only just noticed that I've signed that post like it's a letter. Clearly my brain is not willing to believe I'm off work today. You're all very polite for not pointing and laughing at me by the way.
Puja
ha, I thought it was a reference to the Peter Principle, Peter Perfect, Blue Peter or some other Peter I hadn't thought of. Peter Bone, maybe
Nope, just the collapse of my secret identity. Oh well, I wasn't using it for anything anyway.
Sandydragon wrote:
I agree in principle, but I, now very firmly of the opinion that referendums need to be specific. If a new PM can negotiate a new deal with the EU and that can be an option then great. If not, it’s a straight fight between WTO and remain as we are.
Ballsy!! It panders to the arch-Brexiteers and means they become the legit leave option, which is not a good place to be.
The current place and any negotiated deal from the next Tory PM are not good places to be either. And really if the country wants a hard Brexit that's their democratic right.
Agreed. That is our democratic right. As someone arguing to uphold the result of the referendum despite losing, I couldn’t agree more. No deal Brexit as the legitimate version of Brexit is a bigger worry than a deal as, in that scenario, the extreme has become the mainstream. There are degrees of good and bad, it’s not black or white.
Sandydragon wrote:
I agree in principle, but I, now very firmly of the opinion that referendums need to be specific. If a new PM can negotiate a new deal with the EU and that can be an option then great. If not, it’s a straight fight between WTO and remain as we are.
Ballsy!! It panders to the arch-Brexiteers and means they become the legit leave option, which is not a good place to be.
The current place and any negotiated deal from the next Tory PM are not good places to be either. And really if the country wants a hard Brexit that's their democratic right.
At present, the country doesn't want a No Deal Brexit - it's unarguably mental and this election shows that it only commands 35% of the vote even when only the rabidly invested turn out. However, that's mostly because the Overton window has No Deal as being an extreme option that is clearly mental. Legitimise it as being the alternative to "No Brexit" and it'll become mainstream. And, despite it being extreme and stupid, as previously discussed, the electorate as a whole is underinformed, easily swayed, and occasionally deeply stupid, so all bets are off if it comes down to a binary choice. Especially because Farage is a master at turning it into the, "the elite hate you, this is the option for freedom, this is the option for the glory of Britain, this is the option for the ordinary working man," choice rather than it remaining the extreme option that should stay out on the fringes.
Mellsblue wrote:
Ballsy!! It panders to the arch-Brexiteers and means they become the legit leave option, which is not a good place to be.
The current place and any negotiated deal from the next Tory PM are not good places to be either. And really if the country wants a hard Brexit that's their democratic right.
At present, the country doesn't want a No Deal Brexit - it's unarguably mental and this election shows that it only commands 35% of the vote even when only the rabidly invested turn out. However, as previously discussed, the electorate as a whole is underinformed, easily swayed, and occasionally deeply stupid, so all bets are off if it comes down to a binary choice. Legitimising No Deal as *the Brexit option* is asking for trouble, because Farage and co can turn it into the, "the elite hate you, this is the option for freedom, this is the option for the glory of Britain, this is the option for the ordinary working man," choice rather than it remaining the extreme option that should stay out on the fringes.
Puja
We agree again. Must be a glitch in the matrix
As an aside, we are currently on hols in the Peak District. A bloke on an adjacent table at the restaurant boldly declared that anyone not respecting the referendum result was a traitor and should be hanged. I had to physically stop the long suffering Mrs Mellsblue from going over and giving him a piece of her mind.
Mellsblue wrote:
Ballsy!! It panders to the arch-Brexiteers and means they become the legit leave option, which is not a good place to be.
The current place and any negotiated deal from the next Tory PM are not good places to be either. And really if the country wants a hard Brexit that's their democratic right.
At present, the country doesn't want a No Deal Brexit - it's unarguably mental and this election shows that it only commands 35% of the vote even when only the rabidly invested turn out. However, that's mostly because the Overton window has No Deal as being an extreme option that is clearly mental. Legitimise it as being the alternative to "No Brexit" and it'll become mainstream. And, despite it being extreme and stupid, as previously discussed, the electorate as a whole is underinformed, easily swayed, and occasionally deeply stupid, so all bets are off if it comes down to a binary choice. Especially because Farage is a master at turning it into the, "the elite hate you, this is the option for freedom, this is the option for the glory of Britain, this is the option for the ordinary working man," choice rather than it remaining the extreme option that should stay out on the fringes.
Puja
If the country doesn't want no deal vote for something else. Not that I love the idea of a plebiscitary democracy but it's where we are
Digby wrote:
The current place and any negotiated deal from the next Tory PM are not good places to be either. And really if the country wants a hard Brexit that's their democratic right.
At present, the country doesn't want a No Deal Brexit - it's unarguably mental and this election shows that it only commands 35% of the vote even when only the rabidly invested turn out. However, as previously discussed, the electorate as a whole is underinformed, easily swayed, and occasionally deeply stupid, so all bets are off if it comes down to a binary choice. Legitimising No Deal as *the Brexit option* is asking for trouble, because Farage and co can turn it into the, "the elite hate you, this is the option for freedom, this is the option for the glory of Britain, this is the option for the ordinary working man," choice rather than it remaining the extreme option that should stay out on the fringes.
Puja
We agree again. Must be a glitch in the matrix
As an aside, we are currently on hols in the Peak District. A bloke on an adjacent table at the restaurant boldly declared that anyone not respecting the referendum result was a traitor and should be hanged. I had to physically stop the long suffering Mrs Mellsblue from going over and giving him a piece of her mind.
I'm shocked the sort of person to vote Brexit is the sort of person to back the death penalty, who knew.
Digby wrote:
The current place and any negotiated deal from the next Tory PM are not good places to be either. And really if the country wants a hard Brexit that's their democratic right.
At present, the country doesn't want a No Deal Brexit - it's unarguably mental and this election shows that it only commands 35% of the vote even when only the rabidly invested turn out. However, that's mostly because the Overton window has No Deal as being an extreme option that is clearly mental. Legitimise it as being the alternative to "No Brexit" and it'll become mainstream. And, despite it being extreme and stupid, as previously discussed, the electorate as a whole is underinformed, easily swayed, and occasionally deeply stupid, so all bets are off if it comes down to a binary choice. Especially because Farage is a master at turning it into the, "the elite hate you, this is the option for freedom, this is the option for the glory of Britain, this is the option for the ordinary working man," choice rather than it remaining the extreme option that should stay out on the fringes.
Puja
If the country doesn't want no deal vote for something else. Not that I love the idea of a plebiscitary democracy but it's where we are
That's kind of mine and Mells's point - if we don't give them the option to vote for something else, then they may choose no deal just out of it being presented as an acceptable option, rather than batshit insane. And everything has to go through public vote now - we're not so much a democracy as we are a Simon Cowell show.
Mellsblue wrote:We agree again. Must be a glitch in the matrix
As an aside, we are currently on hols in the Peak District. A bloke on an adjacent table at the restaurant boldly declared that anyone not respecting the referendum result was a traitor and should be hanged. I had to physically stop the long suffering Mrs Mellsblue from going over and giving him a piece of her mind.
An acquaintance of mine on Facebook made a fairly innocuous post about the elections. He's very strongly Remain, so it was as you'd expect, but the affable discussion in the comments very abruptly right turned into this:
Mellsblue wrote:
Ballsy!! It panders to the arch-Brexiteers and means they become the legit leave option, which is not a good place to be.
The current place and any negotiated deal from the next Tory PM are not good places to be either. And really if the country wants a hard Brexit that's their democratic right.
Agreed. That is our democratic right. As someone arguing to uphold the result of the referendum despite losing, I couldn’t agree more. No deal Brexit as the legitimate version of Brexit is a bigger worry than a deal as, in that scenario, the extreme has become the mainstream. There are degrees of good and bad, it’s not black or white.
We have been heading towards black and white politics for years; this referendum process has just reinforced it.
Puja wrote:
That's kind of mine and Mells's point - if we don't give them the option to vote for something else, then they may choose no deal just out of it being presented as an acceptable option, rather than batshit insane. And everything has to go through public vote now - we're not so much a democracy as we are a Simon Cowell show.
Puja
Then they choose it. I'm not saying there shouldn't be other options, but there should be an option for no deal.
Puja wrote:
That's kind of mine and Mells's point - if we don't give them the option to vote for something else, then they may choose no deal just out of it being presented as an acceptable option, rather than batshit insane. And everything has to go through public vote now - we're not so much a democracy as we are a Simon Cowell show.
Puja
Then they choose it. I'm not saying there shouldn't be other options, but there should be an option for no deal.
And yes, we are on the way to the Hunger Games
Wait, what? What the hell are you arguing with us for then? Neither Mells nor I said there shouldn't be a No Deal option, just that there should be a Deal option on there as well, which sounds like what you've just said.
Puja wrote:
That's kind of mine and Mells's point - if we don't give them the option to vote for something else, then they may choose no deal just out of it being presented as an acceptable option, rather than batshit insane. And everything has to go through public vote now - we're not so much a democracy as we are a Simon Cowell show.
Puja
Then they choose it. I'm not saying there shouldn't be other options, but there should be an option for no deal.
And yes, we are on the way to the Hunger Games
Wait, what? What the hell are you arguing with us for then? Neither Mells nor I said there shouldn't be a No Deal option, just that there should be a Deal option on there as well, which sounds like what you've just said.
Puja
Because it’s Diggers and it’s 2-4-1 snowballs at the local.
Having now had the time to have a thorough browse on social media, there seems to be a lot of my arch-Remainer friends cutting up the results with the Conservatives not being classed pro-Brexit. I’m struggling to understand this. What is the logic with not including the Con’s (pathetic) % vote in the Leave total when comparing Remain v Leave?
Mellsblue wrote:Having now had the time to have a thorough browse on social media, there seems to be a lot of my arch-Remainer friends cutting up the results with the Conservatives not being classed pro-Brexit. I’m struggling to understand this. What is the logic with not including the Con’s (pathetic) % vote in the Leave total when comparing Remain v Leave?
I'm getting that a lot too, as well as occasional attempts to claim Labour votes as Remain. I think the logic is that votes for Labour and Conservatives "don't count" on Brexit because people voting for those were voting for reasons other than Brexit. Which, I can see their point, and I'd imagine there's a reasonable amount of truth in that, but you'd have to expect that the majority of Conservative voters in that election were also Leave fans.
In short, I believe the logic of parsing the data that way is that, "It proves the point that I want to make," as is true for 90% of all political data analysis.
Mellsblue wrote:Having now had the time to have a thorough browse on social media, there seems to be a lot of my arch-Remainer friends cutting up the results with the Conservatives not being classed pro-Brexit. I’m struggling to understand this. What is the logic with not including the Con’s (pathetic) % vote in the Leave total when comparing Remain v Leave?
I'm getting that a lot too, as well as occasional attempts to claim Labour votes as Remain. I think the logic is that votes for Labour and Conservatives "don't count" on Brexit because people voting for those were voting for reasons other than Brexit. Which, I can see their point, and I'd imagine there's a reasonable amount of truth in that, but you'd have to expect that the majority of Conservative voters in that election were also Leave fans.
In short, I believe the logic of parsing the data that way is that, "It proves the point that I want to make," as is true for 90% of all political data analysis.
Puja
Ah, ok. Should we not apply the same logic to all the non-single policy parties, such as Lib Dems and Green, then?!? I’m also certain I’ve read that just over a third of SNP voters voted Leave in the referendum. Either accept a party is Leave or Remain based on what their manifesto says or just don’t bother trying to make the comparison as it’s just guesswork.
To join in the sophistry, I was going to tweet/post an anti-union vs pro-union aggregate poll and lump the BP, UKIP, Con, SNP and CP % votes together. I decided not to as the consequences for me would definitely be negative. Either nobody would respond and I’d have a proof of my irrelevance or it would kick off and my life would become even more stressful.
Mellsblue wrote:To join in the sophistry, I was going to tweet/post an anti-union vs pro-union aggregate poll and lump the BP, UKIP, Con, SNP and CP % votes together. I decided not to as the consequences for me would definitely be negative. Either nobody would respond and I’d have a proof of my irrelevance or it would kick off and my life would become even more stressful.
If it makes you feel any better, it did just get a laugh from me.
Please note, you've been given the reasons, you just disagree with them and therefore want different reasons.
Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, PC, CHUK are united as parties, and actively campaign on a stance of stopping Brexit, and have no internal divisions about that policy.
Brexit Party and UKIP are united as parties, and actively campaign on a stance of leaving the EU on WTO terms, with noninternal divisions about that policy.
Conservatives are deeply riven as a party, and passively campaigned on a stance of a compromise Brexit that is virtually impossible, and have significant divisions about that policy - (seemingly) with about 50% wanting to go further and about 20% wanting to stop Brexit.
Labour are deeply riven as a party, and passively campaigned mom a stance of a compromise Brexit that is virtually impossi, andnhave significant division about that policy - (seemingly) with about 60% wanting to stop Brexit and about 10% wanting to leave on WTO terms. From what I understand, every individual labour candidate in the EU elections campaigned against the party leadership, on a pro-EU personal platform
They are also the 2 "main" parties, and, alongnwith Greens (environment) are the most likely to accrue votes for issues othe than Brexit. Given their stances, they are the least likely tomaccrue votes based on Brexit. I don't see anyone voting in these elections, who decide where to cast their ballot based on a party's position on Brexit, and actually voting for either of these parties.
Consequently, it makes far more sense to leave both out of the equation when it comes to analysing whether those votes were cast as pro- or anti- Brexit, but if you had to, you'd put Tory as pro and Labour as anti.
When I was doing my analysis, I played with putting them in a group of their own for a negotiated brexit, but my belief that no-one was voting for them BECAUSE of their stancemon Brexit meant that that seemed silly.
From what I've seen, the professional pollsters agree. Hell, Mells agreed as well when he told me to told me to do it the way the BBC did it, in reply to me doing it the way the BBC did it, but hours before the BBC did it that way.
You don't have to agre with my reasons, but you can't claim that you haven't seen them or that you don't understand them, or that they are not sincerely held. Or rather, you can, but that would just be your cognitive dissonance.
Last edited by Which Tyler on Tue May 28, 2019 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Puja wrote:
That's kind of mine and Mells's point - if we don't give them the option to vote for something else, then they may choose no deal just out of it being presented as an acceptable option, rather than batshit insane. And everything has to go through public vote now - we're not so much a democracy as we are a Simon Cowell show.
Puja
Then they choose it. I'm not saying there shouldn't be other options, but there should be an option for no deal.
And yes, we are on the way to the Hunger Games
Wait, what? What the hell are you arguing with us for then? Neither Mells nor I said there shouldn't be a No Deal option, just that there should be a Deal option on there as well, which sounds like what you've just said.
Puja
There could and perhaps even should be a deal option but I don't think there has to be a deal option, and I don't think you can say no to having a vote just because one didn't have a deal option.
Which Tyler wrote:Please note, you've been given the reasons, you just disagree with them and therefore want different reasons.
Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, PC, CHUK are united as parties, and actively campaign on a stance of stopping Brexit, and have no internal divisions about that policy.
Brexit Party and UKIP are united as parties, and actively campaign on a stance of leaving the EU on WTO terms, with noninternal divisions about that policy.
Conservatives are deeply riven as a party, and passively campaigned on a stance of a compromise Brexit that is virtually impossible, and have significant divisions about that policy - (seemingly) with about 50% wanting to go further and about 20% wanting to stop Brexit.
Labour are deeply riven as a party, and passively campaigned mom a stance of a compromise Brexit that is virtually impossi, andnhave significant division about that policy - (seemingly) with about 60% wanting to stop Brexit and about 10% wanting to leave on WTO terms. From what I understand, every individual labour candidate in the EU elections campaigned against the party leadership, on a pro-EU personal platform
They are also the 2 "main" parties, and, alongnwith Greens (environment) are the most likely to accrue votes for issues othe than Brexit. Given their stances, they are the least likely tomaccrue votes based on Brexit. I don't see anyone voting in these elections, who decide where to cast their ballot based on a party's position on Brexit, and actually voting for either of these parties.
Consequently, it makes far more sense to leave both out of the equation when it comes to analysing whether those votes were cast as pro- or anti- Brexit, but if you had to, you'd put Tory as pro and Labour as anti.
When I was doing my analysis, I played with putting them in a group of their own for a negotiated brexit, but my belief that no-one was voting for them BECAUSE of their stancemon Brexit meant that that seemed silly.
From what I've seen, the professional pollsters agree. Hell, Mells agreed as well when he told me to told me to do it the way the BBC did it, in reply to me doing it the way the BBC did it, but hours before the BBC did it that way.
You don't have to agre with my reasons, but you can't claim that you haven't seen them or that you don't understand them, or that they are not sincerely held. Or rather, you can, but that would just be your cognitive dissonance.
I’ve been given your reasons but there are other people out there you think as you do so, I wanted their reasons, too.
For clarity, I didn’t tell you to do it the way the BBC did it. I merely posted the way they’d broken it down to show how different outlets are doing it differently, and by way of comparison as to how the source I assumed you used was presented.
Mellsblue wrote:I’ve been given your reasons but there are other people out there you think as you do so, I wanted their reasons, too.
For clarity, I didn’t tell you to do it the way the BBC did it. I merely posted the way they’d broken it down to show how different outlets are doing it differently, and by way of comparison as to how the source I assumed you used was presented.
Then next time say something like "I want to know why people have it this way, but I don't want to hear from people who've done it this way"
or "I want people's opinions, but not Aidans"
Which Tyler wrote:Also, which pollsters? Would you point me on their direction.
Try the ones you said did it the way I should have done.
ETA: Actually, no, sorry, you're right. You told me that I really should do it the way I did do it, then you showed me another source doing it the same way I had done it to show me an alternative.
Digby wrote:Alastair Campbell kicked out of the Labour Party for voting Lid Dem. Corbyn will always look a muppet going after people for their voting record
Really Jeremy? This is really the priority right now? And, while I get that this is open and shut, this kind of swift sentencing will be compared unfavourably with the anti-semitism tribunals so it's another phenomenal publicity own-goal.
Thanks for tilting the debate back leftwards and returning Labour to being Labour, rather than Conservatives-lite, and thank you for enlivening the youth vote and engaging so many new people with politics, but I think it is now past time to go.
Mellsblue wrote:I’ve been given your reasons but there are other people out there you think as you do so, I wanted their reasons, too.
For clarity, I didn’t tell you to do it the way the BBC did it. I merely posted the way they’d broken it down to show how different outlets are doing it differently, and by way of comparison as to how the source I assumed you used was presented.
Then next time say something like "I want to know why people have it this way, but I don't want to hear from people who've done it this way"
or "I want people's opinions, but not Aidans"
Which Tyler wrote:Also, which pollsters? Would you point me on their direction.
Try the ones you said did it the way I should have done.
ETA: Actually, no, sorry, you're right. You told me that I really should do it the way I did do it, then you showed me another source doing it the same way I had done it to show me an alternative.
Chill, Winston. Could still do with the name of these pollsters, though.
