Curious, the alt-leavers were responsible for a 4% boost on spending by the opponents of those who wished to Remain as well as reinforcing their shared anti-immigration message.
Curious, the alt-leavers were responsible for a 4% boost on spending by the opponents of those who wished to Remain as well as reinforcing their shared anti-immigration message.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Indeed just 4% not remotely comparable. Incidentally Leave.EU was just one of many tertiary groups with their own spending limit, there were others like Labour Leave etc not to forget the political parties that had limits closer to the official campaign limits than these tertiary groups.
The idea Leave.EU was remotely in the lead or seriously responsible for 52% of the electorate is a total fallacy unsupported by all documented evidence.
Indeed just 4% not remotely comparable. Incidentally Leave.EU was just one of many tertiary groups with their own spending limit, there were others like Labour Leave etc not to forget the political parties that had limits closer to the official campaign limits than these tertiary groups.
The idea Leave.EU was remotely in the lead or seriously responsible for 52% of the electorate is a total fallacy unsupported by all documented evidence.
Didn't you clowns beat the forces of light by something like 4%?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
4% of the country, not 4% of the leave vote. Take away an added 4% of the leave vote and the forces of democracy would have still won by about 600,000 votes.
Though even if it was 10% it would not change the fact that leave != that fringe. Hold extremists to account by themselves without tarnishing everyone on a binary divide, that would be like me tarnishing all left wingers for the actions of Stalin and Pol Pot.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Do..._2016webV4.pdf
Page 30. Immigration ranked the most important issue amongst leave voters at 54%, followed by sovereignty (~30%), followed by some other categories to do with immigration (cost to the welfare system and asylum. Note that respondents could choose more than one thing, so you can't add them to the 54%).
Another example. The British election survey asked open ended questions about people's reasons for voting the way they did, then make some word clouds from the answers. The leaver word cloud is fairly striking.
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/...eu-referendum/
In fairness, there are other surveys and polls out there that rank sovereignty ahead of immigration (i.e. the Ashcroft one). Those are the two consistent themes of Brexit.
'Free trade' doesn't get a look in anywhere, though. The idea that Brexit had anything to do with free trade is outright fantasy.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Also, open question aimed at Randblade.
Hypothetical scenario: before the vote, the leaders of the vote leave campaign, make the follow announcement:
"If the result of the referendum is that the UK should leave the European Union, our first priority in negotiations about the terms of our exit will be to ensure the European Union to ensure the current arrangements about free movement of people remain in place, so that we can retain access to the single market. We will also seek trade deals with other economic powers such as the United States and China. But free movement is definitely staying, so don't worry about that."
The Tory party confirms this will indeed be government policy while they're in power. Labour says they'd probably do the same thing in government.
What do you think the result would have been?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Your implication is fallacious. You can't divide the people who voted one way into groups and claim that one group was responsible for the result rather than the other groups unless that one group had sufficient #s to win all on their own. You can maybe discount a group if their total contribution was less than the margin of victory (it would be a rather shaky claim but depending on the exact context you might be able to justify it) but that's really the most you can do with divvying up vote totals and assigning responsibility.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Did you see me saying that the rest of the Leave voters were not responsible?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Probably similar to the Scottish Indyref: 45-55 to Remain. Hence why Vote Leave explicitly ruled out staying in the Single Market, which nearly made me switch back to Remain but was insufficient to do so.
However that's neither here nor there, I never said immigration didn't play a role in the debate, but it was not exclusive (most surveys did indeed put my concern of sovereignty top). There was a world of difference though between the proper leave campaign's arguments about immigration being a subject we can control ourselves to the wild rampant racism of the Kippers like their despicable "Breaking Point" poster. A poster that was not even a leave poster, it was a UKIP one and was denounced by leavers.
Since you've tried to sidetrack the discussion though I'm assuming you accept for future reference that Leave.EU were a peripheral organisation and not the Leave campaign? It was the plaything of Aaron Banks and Nigel Farage.
No, as I don't accept your premise that monies raised for the campaign the sole arbiter of how influential or important they were - for example, check out some online metrics such as twitter followers, facebook likes or google presence etc for leave.eu vs vote leave or, indeed, any other group on either side to get an idea of how 'peripheral' they were (SPOILERS: leave.eu wipes their ass with everyone).
However, I cannot actually be bothered to do enough research to actual prove this (i.e. checking how many mentions they got in media stories and so on) one way or another, and it is not necessary to disprove the notion that Brexit was nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with free trader when we have straight forward poll data saying immigration was a very important issue for leave voters and no one gives a shit about free trade.
In short, in terms of the generla body Brexiters, you're more of a fringe than UKIP.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
That approach has been has been taken many times by all of us over the course of this particular multi-thread conversation and I have no reason to believe RB will be any more receptive to it today than he was several months ago. RB is trying to pretend that the impact of the anti-immigration campaign and anti-immigration voters was small, and we know that he rejects the evidence that shows that impact to be large, so I'm more interested now in making a case for that small impact being consequential. I most certainly do not believe that the Leav.EU campaign is the most important reason they won. They won because the mainstream incorporated the xenophobic anti-immigration ideas of the so-called "fringe" and the voters totally dug that.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You can not be serious. This may be news to you but twitter is not the country. If Twitter was representative of anything other than how many obnoxious arseholes like to chat shit to each other then there would never have been a referendum as Prime Minister Miliband wouldn't have held the referendum, though Leader of the Opposition Farage would still be pushing for one since his party pushed the Tories into a distant third place in 2015. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...gn-battle.html
Except back in the real world the Tories won the election and didn't come third
Except I never said it had nothing to do with immigration, I said it had nothing to do with protectionism or the rampant racism of Le Pen.However, I cannot actually be bothered to do enough research to actual prove this (i.e. checking how many mentions they got in media stories and so on) one way or another, and it is not necessary to disprove the notion that Brexit was nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with free trader when we have straight forward poll data saying immigration was a very important issue for leave voters and no one gives a shit about free trade.
In short, in terms of the generla body Brexiters, you're more of a fringe than UKIP.
*snort* Except when it's a non-representative plurality that matters, or when it's the margin that matters, or when it's the glorious leader that matters
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Based on the new Steely Glint Law of Social Media Equals Popularity (TM) it seems that we are about to have an unprecedented Labour Landslide in our forthcoming election. Jeremy Corbyn has more than twice as many likes on Facebook than Theresa May and since a Facebook like or Twitter follow is all that matters in our glorious new Steely Glint universe it seems we will replace Prime Minister Miliband with an even more popular Prime Minister Corbyn and a Labour army who "wipes their ass with everyone".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-39856464
By the token, Randblade, your spending = popularity metric should tell us that Brexit never happened and Hillary Clinton is president.
*Ron Howard narrator voice*Except I never said it had nothing to do with immigration, I said it had nothing to do with protectionism or the rampant racism of Le Pen.
He did say Brexit had nothing to do with immigration.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Or that money accounted for = money spent on the campaign.
Congratulations America
To spend money and not account for it would be a crime.
I never said spending = popularity, I said that Vote Leave was the leave leadership and by all reasonable metrics it was. It was legally, it was by expenditure, it was by airtime. I can not think of a single reasonable metric where it wasn't - and no a social media echo chamber is not a reasonable metric.
As for Ron Howard, if I said that then it will be written down and easy to quote so to quote my daughter's favourite Ron Howard show *Man in a Yellow Hat voice* 'be a good little money' and why not find that quote because I'm curious where I did.
You don't say so. Who will land in prison then if illegal funding is established? Does it have an effect of the validity of the referendum? Or the legitimacy of May's off-the-cuff Brexit?
Congratulations America
None of that answers my questions.
But just for the heck of it ; do these people also take into account funds spent outside your borders? Because I do know for a fact that your PM is awfully worried about interference from the EU, but I don't get the idea she's very worried about Kremlin interference or the role of shady companies in Canada.
Congratulations America