• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

And you know the worse thing about that? 12 months on and they are still some who believe it.:)

Well, Polly Toynbee and the 'below the liners' on the Guardian

But that intervention by Osborne was the real jump the shark moment for Remain, where hyperbole discredited any sense of reasoned argument.
 
.
Where does it say ALL 350 mill was going to be given to the NHS?. Come on mate i took you for being a lot better then believing it does.

I don't believe it, I never did. But you are being disingenuous if you seriously can't see why some people would have looked at that and thought "I'll vote for £350m for the NHS." Show me where on that sign it says "Let's use some of that money to fund our NHS." It is written the way it is deliberately, so people make the simple connection. You know that as well as I do.

As it happens, I am far from a "remoaner" (not saying you said I was one, by the way). I voted to remain, but I'm not rabid about it and I can see there might be some upsides to leaving as well as downsides. But that election promise is deliberately misleading and it did mislead a lot of people, that's why a fuss was made about it; not just by people with agendas, but people who actually voted for what the sign intimated.
 
Absolutely, for sure.

But that was how it was (mis-)sold, in big, naff-off letters on the side of a bus, and to some greater or lesser extent people bought it.

I'm just bewildered that that's an acceptable tactic in these enlightened times.

Yep, FOM will stop. But if the numbers were/ are such an issue (and I think that they are in some areas), then why hasn't non-EU immigration been curbed by successive govts over the years? Presumably the economy needed the work force?

Didn't the white paper say we always had sovereignty, it just didn't "always appear that way" (paraphrasing)?

Moreover, our UK campaign funding rules - which try to ensure a fair democratic playing field - were 'circumnavigated' (broken) by wealthy Leave players. Robert Mercer a US billionaire who was involved with Trump, funded and used Brexit as a test-bed. As the result was so close, you have to say that both the false advertising and cheating election funding rules, are likely to have impacted the result. It's pretty shocking when you pull it apart - a wealthy elite manipulating politics and a country's future like its a toy.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...nalytica-leave-eu-referendum-brexit-campaigns
 
Last edited:
I don't believe it, I never did. But you are being disingenuous if you seriously can't see why some people would have looked at that and thought "I'll vote for £350m for the NHS." Show me where on that sign it says "Let's use some of that money to fund our NHS." It is written the way it is deliberately, so people make the simple connection. You know that as well as I do.

As it happens, I am far from a "remoaner" (not saying you said I was one, by the way). I voted to remain, but I'm not rabid about it and I can see there might be some upsides to leaving as well as downsides. But that election promise is deliberately misleading and it did mislead a lot of people, that's why a fuss was made about it; not just by people with agendas, but people who actually voted for what the sign intimated.

it wasn't just on a bus

Boris-Johnson-574738.jpg


and he was repeating it in April

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...labour-leader-uk-prime-minister-a7705026.html
 
I don't believe it, I never did. But you are being disingenuous if you seriously can't see why some people would have looked at that and thought "I'll vote for £350m for the NHS."

I agree with this 100% but lets not be children here, every election fought has been done so using fanciful slogans that can mean more than one thing and Cameron/May have been the masters of the manifesto lie.

May has been caught a number of times lying, my local MP said she was going to fight the lower thames crossing in the 2015 election, her campaign built around actually stopping it (it was going through peoples homes), as soon as she was in she backed the crossing.

So I would not pick too many holes in a badly worded bus
 
I agree with this 100% but lets not be children here, every election fought has been done so using fanciful slogans that can mean more than one thing and Cameron/May have been the masters of the manifesto lie.

May has been caught a number of times lying, my local MP said she was going to fight the lower thames crossing in the 2015 election, her campaign built around actually stopping it (it was going through peoples homes), as soon as she was in she backed the crossing.

So I would not pick too many holes in a badly worded bus

I agree, but a referendum is different to a normal general election in that it is a one-off (or once in a generation). For a general election, you can change the way you vote in a few years time. A referendum, you might not live to see the chance to vote differently.

For me, it is disingenuous of people to act like that claim meant nothing to people when it obviously did to some. And in such a close vote, things like that could tip the balance.
 
Bingo, that is way most folks i know read it.

There were 3 main promises made, some might call them lies. You addressed the first:

1. ‘Let’s give our NHS the £350m the EU takes every week’

2. ‘A vote for leave will be a vote to cut immigration’

3. ‘Five million more migrants could enter Britain by 2030 if Turkey and four other applicant countries join the EU’

Obviously #3 was never on the table, never a possibility, but it was a way of shining the light away from the economy. If the Brexit campaign was about the economy Leave would have lost. So they very cleverly made it about immigration. But if all 3 of these proclamations are not honoured (highly likely) have people been sold a pup?
 
I agree, but a referendum is different to a normal general election in that it is a one-off (or once in a generation). For a general election, you can change the way you vote in a few years time. A referendum, you might not live to see the chance to vote differently.

For me, it is disingenuous of people to act like that claim meant nothing to people when it obviously did to some. And in such a close vote, things like that could tip the balance.

I think the difficulty is there was no political party behind leave or remain it was a mix of all parties, there were remainers and brexiteers in all parties so no one was ever going to be held accountable for the promises in the same way that say the Conservatives would be about tax cuts, if that makes sense?

That said, Cameron gave the people the referendum knowing that if we left he would lead brexit although he did not fancy it and that passes on to Miss May, so the responsibility on brexit falls on their shoulders, we talked in another thread about responsibility so they take that burden in my view.

So they need to get as close to the numbers as they can and where they fall short they need to make sure the other benefits May talks about so strongly in her good deal bad deal chat are made obvious to the people.

I agree with what you are saying but there was also alot more to brexit and the benefits and pitfalls than just the 3 main facts.

On another note May needs all the help she can get on the NHS..........
 
The priorities comment supersedes the NHS part and is argued that the NHS comment would be an example of where money could be spent not as a fact but as an example
If you want to see it that way yes, if you wanted to see it say all goes to NHS that's how you read it. It was the beauty of the leave campaign, different factions offering different outcomes, it was a pick and mix, and everyone went to the ballet box with their Brexit in mind.
 
I would be genuinely interested in what Scara, Parklane and others who are more pro Leave think of this article. Of course Remain voters are going to find it an injustice, but do others? Is it Remoaning, do we care if our political system is manipulated by US and UK elites? Its also interesting to see the Brexit funding links with the DUP.

Follow the data: does a legal document link Brexit campaigns to US billionaire?

We reveal how a confidential legal agreement is at the heart of a web connecting Robert Mercer to Britain’s EU referendum




US billionaire Robert Mercer in Washington DC in March this year. Photograph: Oliver Contreras/The Washington Post via Getty Imag

  • This article is the subject of a legal complaint on behalf of SCLE and Cambridge Analytica.
On 18 November 2015, the British press gathered in a hall in Westminster to witness the official launch of Leave.EU. Nigel Farage, the campaign’s figurehead, was banished to the back of the room and instead an American political strategist, Gerry Gunster, took centre stage and explained its strategy. “The one thing that I know is data,” he said. “Numbers do not lie. I’m going to follow the data.”

Eighteen months on, it’s this same insight – to follow the data – that is the key to unlocking what really happened behind the scenes of the Leave campaign. On the surface, the two main campaigns, Leave.EU and Vote Leave, hated one other. Their leading lights, Farage and Boris Johnson, were sworn enemies for the duration of the referendum. The two campaigns bitterly refused even to share a platform.

But the Observer has seen a confidential document that provides clear evidence of a link between the two campaigns. More precisely, evidence of a close working relationship between the two data analytics firms employed by the campaigns – AggregateIQ, which Vote Leave hired, and Cambridge Analytica, retained by Leave.EU.


FacebookTwitterPinterest
The leaked intellectual property licence document that shows a link between AggregateIQ and SCL Elections (the company behind Cambridge Analytica). Photograph: Observer
British electoral law is founded on the principle of a level playing field and controlling campaign spending is the key plank of that. The law states that different campaigns must not work together unless they declare their expenditure jointly. This controls spending limits so that no side can effectively “buy” an election.


But this signed legal document – a document that was never meant to be made public and was leaked by a concerned source – connects both Vote Leave and Leave.EU’s data firms directly to Robert Mercer, the American billionaire who bankrolled Donald Trump.

This is a deeply complex story. It has taken three months of investigation to unravel the web of connections – both human and contractual. But these connections and threads linking two separate foreign data analytics companies – one based in Canada and one based in London – raise profound and troubling questions about our democratic process. Because these intricate links lead, in not many steps, to Robert Mercer.

This ordinary-looking document is at the heart of a web of relationships that link Mercer with the referendum to take Britain out of the EU. What impact did Mercer have on Brexit? Did the campaigns know of the link? Did they deliberately conceal it? Or could they, too, have been in the dark?

Because, legally, these two companies – AggregateIQ in Canada and Cambridge Analytica, an American company based in London, have nothing to connect them publicly. But this intellectual property licence shown to the Observer tells a different story. This created a binding “exclusive” “worldwide” agreement “in perpetuity” for all of AggregateIQ’s intellectual property to be used by SCL Elections (a British firm that created Cambridge Analytica with Mercer).

The companies may have had different owners but they were legally bound together. And, the Observer has learned, they were working together on a daily basis at the time of the referendum – both companies were being paid by Mercer-funded organisations to work on Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign in America. What is more, several anonymous sources reveal the two companies, working on two separate British Leave campaigns, actually shared the same database at the time.

In fact AggregateIQ had a non-compete clause. Leave.EU announced in November 2015 it was working with Cambridge Analytica which means that AggregateIQ must have had explicit permission to work with Vote Leave.

And yet none of this was visible. Dominic Cummings, a former Tory special adviser who was Vote Leave’s chief strategist, was a vocal critic of Ukip, Farage, Leave.EU and its millionaire backer, Arron Banks. And the two campaigns followed different strategies – Leave.EU targeting Ukippers and disaffected working-class Labour voters with images of queues of refugees. Vote Leave targeted middle England with a message about returning £350m a week from Europe to the NHS.

Follow the data, however, and another story is revealed, which leads directly to Mercer and his close associate, Steve Bannon, now Donald Trump’s chief strategist in the White House. Mercer was the owner of Cambridge Analytica, a firm which, as the Observer detailed last week, was spun out of a British firm with 30 years experience in working for governments and militaries around the world, specialising in “psychological operations”. At the time of the referendum, the Observer has learned, Bannon was the head of it.

What was not known, until February, was the relationship between all these figures and the Leave campaign. That was when Andy Wigmore, Leave.EU’s communications director, revealed to this paper that Farage was a close friend of both Bannon and Mercer. He said that the Leave campaign was a “petri dish” for the Trump campaign. “We shared a lot of information because what they were trying to do and what we were trying to do had massive parallels.”

Wigmore also said that Mercer had been “happy to help” and Cambridge Analytica had given its services to the campaign for free. It was the general secretary of Ukip, a British lawyer called Matthew Richardson, who effected Leave.eu’s introduction to Cambridge Analytica, Wigmore said. “We had a guy called Matthew Richardson who’d known Nigel for a long time and he’s always looked after the Mercers. The Mercers had said that here’s this company that we think might be useful.”

Too long to post, rest is here https://www.theguardian.com/technol...nalytica-leave-eu-referendum-brexit-campaigns
 
If you want to see it that way yes, if you wanted to see it say all goes to NHS that's how you read it. It was the beauty of the leave campaign, different factions offering different outcomes, it was a pick and mix, and everyone went to the ballet box with their Brexit in mind.

Yeh I agree, and thats why I don't think it made a difference, if you was Brexit you was Brexit
 
Remain Core Promises

- An 'immediate and profound economic shock’. The economy will ‘fall into recession, with four quarters of negative growth’.
- 'Unemployment will increase by around 500,000’
- UK tourists will face mobile roaming charges on their holidays

Reality

- Growth has remained positive for every quarter since, with Britain one of the fastest growing economies in the G7
- Employment rate has risen. Unemployment has fallen to 4.7% – the lowest rate since 1975
- People aren't really that shallow
 
Back