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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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...