Taking aim at Johnson, British PM hopefuls make Brexit case

[nontabury]

11 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

There is one word that stands out from this sad meme, which is "Servants". The person who put this together is clearly a complete failure him/her/self, if they can't understand what "Representative democracy" means. We elect MPs, and in doing so authorize them to make decisions on our behalf  - Ideally with the interests of the country first, rather than their own personal interests, sadly that is far too often not the case. We effectively put them in a position to rule over us, make our laws etc, consequently to describe them as servants is beyond idiotic. Even if the referendum had been instructive (It wasn't) rather than advisory,  MPs would still BE IN CONTROL OF  attempts to achieve or not achieve Brexit AS THEY SAW FIT, not as "We the voters" see fit. If they find that it is impossible to do without damaging the country to an unacceptable extent then that is up to them - THAT'S  what representative democracy means. We have a vote, then after that we just go back to being "Joe public".

 

 

 I beleive we actually did vote them into parliament, including most of those  M.p’s who stood on a manifesto of taking us out of the E.U.

And yes they are our representatives,and they should keep their word/Promise and respect the people who voted them into Parliament. Instead of changing parties, while not allowing their constituents to endorse their decision.

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by nontabury

[nontabury]

7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

In your book, does 'innocent until proven guilty' only apply to those of whose politics you approve? Regardless, Salmond is no longer a politician.

 

It seems that many are so desperate for Brexit that they will hitch their wagons to this most reprehensible, most revolting of characters. They are happy to ignore his long track record of lies, duplicity and deceit because he promises to give them the Brexit they desire.

 

I have some magic Brexit snake oil if you are interested.

 

Sent from my SM-G975F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

But he was a politician when he committed these crimes that he is now accused off. Along with all the lies, duplicity and deceit that he is now know to have committed.

  Attached is the result of the recent E.u. Election in just one area of Scotland. And as you will notice Brexit,a party just weeks old did very well.

[brewsterbudgen]

Ggjhimjilm huOylhkilkjloplkjj098764209998215mnjfkkjgfivxjfjfggjijklpp098745uhh

Sent from my SM-A500F using Tapatalk

[brewsterbudgen]

8900976680214ety0975210997621123321122334455667799898800poouiihcjl0998799[emoji56][emoji848][emoji38][emoji10][emoji41][emoji41][emoji41][emoji28][emoji28][emoji21][emoji56][emoji56][emoji848][emoji26][emoji56][emoji57][emoji21][emoji26][emoji849][emoji55][emoji58][emoji11][emoji11][emoji4][emoji9][emoji9][emoji11]yvf68aiio

Sent from my SM-A500F using Tapatalk

[transam]

3 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

8900976680214ety0975210997621123321122334455667799898800poouiihcjl0998799yvf68aiio

Sent from my SM-A500F using Tapatalk
 

Have you tried Malwarebytes...?????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

 

But he was a politician when he committed these crimes that he is now accused off. Along with all the lies, duplicity and deceit that he is now know to have committed.

  Attached is the result of the recent E.u. Election in just one area of Scotland. And as you will notice Brexit,a party just weeks old did very well.

The Brexit Party was months old at the time of the EU Elections and headed by arguably the single most recognisable face in British politics, added to which The Brexit Party had only one platform policy - Brexit. 

 

As for 'doing very well'. 

 

At the time of the referendum 38,803 people in Dumfries & Galloway voted Leave (46.9% of the votes cast). 

 

As you demonstrate, in the recent EU elections 9,981 people in Dumfries & Galloway voted for the Brexit Party (21.86% of the votes cast).   28,882 people who voted Leave at the Referendum failed to turnout to vote for The Brexit Party in the EU elections. 

 

Perhaps the name confused them. 

 

Keep the faith, there's 1,228 people (2.7%) who voted for UKIP, perhaps they could swing it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

 

 

 I beleive we actually did vote them into parliament, including most of those  M.p’s who stood on a manifesto of taking us out of the E.U.

And yes they are our representatives,and they should keep their word/Promise and respect the people who voted them into Parliament. Instead of changing parties, while not allowing their constituents to endorse their decision.

 

I'm sure you've heard the expression 'a week is a long time in politics'.

 

Well be assured, three years is a very long time.

 

43,000 people who voted leave in the Referendum failed to turn out to vote for The Brexit Party in the Peterborough by-election. 

27,000 people who voted leave in the Referendum failed to turn out to vote for The Brexit Party or UKIP in Dumfries & Galloway during the EU Elections. This 'will of the people' nonsense is starting to sound awfully hollow.  

[adammike]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

 

But he was a politician when he committed these crimes that he is now accused off. Along with all the lies, duplicity and deceit that he is now know to have committed.

  Attached is the result of the recent E.u. Election in just one area of Scotland. And as you will notice Brexit,a party just weeks old did very well.

Ok the brexit party may only have been registered as a party for a few months but it's headed by arguably the most recognised face in politics, who has in reality simply changed the party's name from Ukip that he was the head of for years to the Brexit party,to suggest that it's a new movement or a new party just makes you and farage seem a little sad and pathetic.

[CG1 Blue]

56 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I'm sure you've heard the expression 'a week is a long time in politics'.

 

Well be assured, three years is a very long time.

 

43,000 people who voted leave in the Referendum failed to turn out to vote for The Brexit Party in the Peterborough by-election. 

27,000 people who voted leave in the Referendum failed to turn out to vote for The Brexit Party or UKIP in Dumfries & Galloway during the EU Elections. This 'will of the people' nonsense is starting to sound awfully hollow.  

Why are you still conflating data from by-elections with data from a binary referendum? I've already explained to you that it makes no sense at all, but you still persist! 

As I told you the last time, if you use your logic then the Remain voters have also disappeared ????

[billd766]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

8900976680214ety0975210997621123321122334455667799898800poouiihcjl0998799yvf68aiio

Sent from my SM-A500F using Tapatalk
 

Alphabet soup?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Why are you still conflating data from by-elections with data from a binary referendum? I've already explained to you that it makes no sense at all, but you still persist! 

As I told you the last time, if you use your logic then the Remain voters have also disappeared ????

Now you are conflating data.

 

UKIP and The Brexit Party are the only parties standing on a single message of Brexit. 

 

In the Dumfries & Galloway example, the share of the vote went from 46.9% at the referendum to just over 24%.

 

In Peterborough it was far more dramatic, 53% collapsed to less than 20% (and Farage hid in the toilets).

 

We are told the nation are up in arms because they are not getting Brexit and yet in the examples above tens of thousands of Leave voters went AWOL.

And shall we forget that Brexiteers were adamant that the EU Election and the Peterborough by-election were going to send a 'Brexit' message to Parliament.

 

Well they did that alright, the message is confirmation of collapsing support for Brexit. 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[evadgib]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Now you are conflating data.

 

UKIP and The Brexit Party are the only parties standing on a single message of Brexit. 

 

In the Dumfries & Galloway example, the share of the vote went from 46.9% at the referendum to just over 24%.

 

We are told the nation are up in arms because they are not getting Brexit and yet in the examples above tens of thousands of Leave voters went AWOL.

And shall we forget that Brexiteers were adamant that the EU Election and the Peterborough by-election were going to send a 'Brexit' message to Parliament.

 

Well they did that alright, the message is confirmation of collapsing support for Brexit. 

Why keep on about Peterborough when you KNOW the result is under investigation?

[Chomper Higgot]

40 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Why keep on about Peterborough when you KNOW the result is under investigation?

I understand The Brexit Party are investigating where 43,000 former Leave voters disappeared to. 

 

They should take hint from Dumfries & Galloway, when the missing Leave supporters gets into the tens of thousands, give it up. 

 

 

Some investigations find electoral fraud, some don't.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_campaigning_in_the_2016_EU_referendum

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[evadgib]

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I understand The Brexit Party are investigating where 43,000 former Leave voters disappeared to. 

 

They should take hint from Dumfries & Galloway, when the missing Leave supporters gets into the tens of thousands, give it up. 

 

 

Some investigations find electoral fraud, some don't.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_campaigning_in_the_2016_EU_referendum

Back on topic:

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by evadgib

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Deflection yet trigger happy with the report button whenever others join in...?

 

Back on topic:

 

The debates are on who should lead the Tory Party, how could they be anything but 'blue on blue'?

 

 

 

[Scott]

A post with personal commentary has been removed.   Anyone, of any nationality, can comment.   Please stay on topic.  

[evadgib]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The debates are on who should lead the Tory Party, how could they be anything but 'blue on blue'?

More Red Meat ????

 

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, Benroon said:

er yes I kind of knew that thus my point.

 

I don't go around bragging about the size of the remain vote, its the brexiteers who love to bandy around the 51% figure but bless them forget to put the 'of those who voted' on the end.

51% of the votes has always seemed self explanatory.

[elliss]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The debates are on who should lead the Tory Party, how could they be anything but 'blue on blue'?

 

 

 

 

  Blues  and blured ,  oops i meant Blair.  All tared with the same brush .  

 UK is in the Hospice, no recovery poss.  Do not delay the inevitable, RIP.

Thx brexitears .. 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by elliss

[CG1 Blue]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Now you are conflating data.

 

UKIP and The Brexit Party are the only parties standing on a single message of Brexit. 

 

In the Dumfries & Galloway example, the share of the vote went from 46.9% at the referendum to just over 24%.

 

In Peterborough it was far more dramatic, 53% collapsed to less than 20% (and Farage hid in the toilets).

 

We are told the nation are up in arms because they are not getting Brexit and yet in the examples above tens of thousands of Leave voters went AWOL.

And shall we forget that Brexiteers were adamant that the EU Election and the Peterborough by-election were going to send a 'Brexit' message to Parliament.

 

Well they did that alright, the message is confirmation of collapsing support for Brexit. 

 

 

A general Election has very different dynamics to a binary referendum. You just cannot compare data from the two. 

 

But if you insist on doing this, then let's look at it another way. Over 34k people in Peterborough voted to remain in 2016. In the by-election the Lib Dems got just 4,159 votes, and the Greens got just 1,035 votes.

 

So using your logic, where is this huge increase for Remain? 

 

 

[nahkit]

18 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Some things are just beyond the pale...

Sent from my SM-G975F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Yes, I'm sure that the views of less than 1% of the party membership is very representative isn't it?

[RuamRudy]

51 minutes ago, nahkit said:

Yes, I'm sure that the views of less than 1% of the party membership is very representative isn't it?

 Why not do something constructive and informative with your day, and google 'how does polling work'?

[nahkit]

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 Why not do something constructive and informative with your day, and google 'how does polling work'?

So you're happy with a poll that contained less than 1% of conservative party members? How about you answer my question rather than get rude?

[RuamRudy]

So you're happy with a poll that contained less than 1% of conservative party members? How about you answer my question rather than get rude?

I don't believe I was rude, but, rather, responding in kind to the facetious tone of your original post. But I shall spell out the issue, as this has be a point of discussion on multiple threads.

It is not necessary to poll every constituent of a constituency or every member of an organisation to understand the direction said group of people is moving.

Expert pollsters (of which, I am sure, most can agree Yougov is) can tell the direction of a county the size of the US by polling as few as 1,000 people. The poll you derided was conducted with about 800 of the approximately 110,000 Conservative party members.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[adammike]

22 hours ago, evadgib said:

51% of the votes has always seemed self explanatory.

Not when it's "51% of the population voted leave" or "51% of the electorate voted leave" or "51% of the people voted leave".

[nahkit]

On 6/19/2019 at 7:41 PM, RuamRudy said:

I don't believe I was rude, but, rather, responding in kind to the facetious tone of your original post. But I shall spell out the issue, as this has be a point of discussion on multiple threads.

It is not necessary to poll every constituent of a constituency or every member of an organisation to understand the direction said group of people is moving.

Expert pollsters (of which, I am sure, most can agree Yougov is) can tell the direction of a county the size of the US by polling as few as 1,000 people. The poll you derided was conducted with about 800 of the approximately 110,000 Conservative party members.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

So pointing out that less than 1% of Conservative members were polled is facetious in your opinion?

 

Telling me to go away and do something constructive is neither facetious or rude in your opinion?

 

I'm fully aware that there is no need to poll every constituent - a facetious reply if ever there was one.

 

The poll was conducted with 829 people, no need to say "about", the numbers are there on the Yougov website.

 

As for the approximately 110,00 members, the conservative party website says there are 124,000 and yesterday, a newspaper report said that the selection of the new prime minister would be carried out by the 160,000 conservative party members. I have no idea which number is correct but I certainly think it's more than 110,000.

 

Yougov pays people to respond to polls, anyone can register, all surveys are conducted entirely on line.

 

If you believe that "expert" pollsters are correct then why bother having voting anymore? We can just get Yougov to tell us what the outcome should be by polling less than 1,000 people and save everybody else the bother of having to go and vote.

 

There again, they would probably have to change their name from Yougov to Wegov.

[welovesundaysatspace]

13 minutes ago, nahkit said:

So pointing out that less than 1% of Conservative members were polled is facetious in your opinion?

 

Telling me to go away and do something constructive is neither facetious or rude in your opinion?

 

I'm fully aware that there is no need to poll every constituent - a facetious reply if ever there was one.

 

The poll was conducted with 829 people, no need to say "about", the numbers are there on the Yougov website.

 

As for the approximately 110,00 members, the conservative party website says there are 124,000 and yesterday, a newspaper report said that the selection of the new prime minister would be carried out by the 160,000 conservative party members. I have no idea which number is correct but I certainly think it's more than 110,000.

 

Yougov pays people to respond to polls, anyone can register, all surveys are conducted entirely on line.

 

If you believe that "expert" pollsters are correct then why bother having voting anymore? We can just get Yougov to tell us what the outcome should be by polling less than 1,000 people and save everybody else the bother of having to go and vote.

 

There again, they would probably have to change their name from Yougov to Wegov.

You really haven’t understood the purpose of an opinion poll, so I guess there is no point asking you to check what a sampling error is. 

[SheungWan]

Pretty obvious that that poll is typical of the Hard Brexiteers on this forum. Apart from the last question re Corbyn. Most of them probably too blinkered to even spot that risk as they fly over the cliff edge. Quibling about samples (see above) a pretty lame attempt at deflection but never mind. Carry on.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[nahkit]

10 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

You really haven’t understood the purpose of an opinion poll, so I guess there is no point asking you to check what a sampling error is. 

" A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error of +/- 3%, a poll of 2,000 people a margin of error of +/- 2%. The smaller the sample, the less precise it is and the wider the margin of error. "

 

Taken from the Yougov website.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2011/11/21/understanding-margin-error

 

The sample is this case was less than 1,000 so, in their own words. "the wider the margin of error".

 

You can insult me and question my intelligence as much as you want but you can't alter the facts.

[welovesundaysatspace]

Just now, nahkit said:

" A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error of +/- 3%, a poll of 2,000 people a margin of error of +/- 2%. The smaller the sample, the less precise it is and the wider the margin of error. "

 

Taken from the Yougov website.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2011/11/21/understanding-margin-error

 

The sample is this case was less than 1,000 so, in their own words. "the wider the margin of error".

 

You can insult me and question my intelligence as much as you want but you can't alter the facts.

I haven’t insulted you. Let us know how the margin of error would change by adding another 180 or so people to the poll and what that would mean in terms of the poll results.