[Politics] Cambridge Analytica were involved in a pro Brexit campaign

[Blue Valkyrie]

Vote Leave and BeLeave shared an office, shared the services of the same group of volunteers, and (unsubstantiated this bit) even held their information on the same shared server.

There was no collusion though. No, sirree...

Not good.


Oh well, drawbridge up and then a slap on the wrist for the scoundrels.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's going to upset no end of people on here, but Wylie is incredibly bright, clear and damning. I posted a few hours ago that I was increasingly coming to the view that there will have to be another referendum. I suspect that there will be somewhat of a flood moving towards this position, or to one where parliament has to make a decision on the legitimacy of the EU membership vote. This is too big a decision, that was too close, and one side (at the very least) is being revealed to have either (or more likely both) of: illegal behaviour; tactics that the general public were utterly unaware of that, once informed, they will regard to be as underhand within the realm of politics, irrespective of its legality.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I must admit I'm totally conflicted here.

I'm a Remainer but I've never advocated a second referendum. Mostly because you have to accept the results of these things for democracy to function but also because the original campaign was so murky, misleading and divisive.

However, should allegations of fraud or impropriety against the Leave side be proven then we simply have to have another one or a precedent has been set that UK election law is there to be broken, or at least very badly bent, without consequence. If Leavers don't like that I'd question what their response would be if it were the other way around, how an election influenced by a shady analytics company can be considered democratic, and if they are no longer confident in their case.

It'll be horrible though. Even more uncertainty in the markets, communities and families divided up again, the rebirth of UKIP. But I don't see what the point of having regulations is if nothing happens when they are broken.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

It's going to upset no end of people on here, but Wylie is incredibly bright, clear and damning. I posted a few hours ago that I was increasingly coming to the view that there will have to be another referendum. I suspect that there will be somewhat of a flood moving towards this position, or to one where parliament has to make a decision on the legitimacy of the EU membership vote. This is too big a decision, that was too close, and one side (at the very least) is being revealed to have either (or more likely both) of: illegal behaviour; tactics that the general public were utterly unaware of that, once informed, they will regard to be as underhand within the realm of politics, irrespective of its legality.

Has Wylie been convicted of being an *enemy of the people* yet ?

 

[CHAPPERS]

Arron Banks must be sweating watching this.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Arron Banks must be sweating watching this.

I'm sure his Russian wife will calm him down.

 

[beorhthelm]

But I don't see what the point of having regulations is if nothing happens when they are broken.

that depends on what remedy those regulations provide in the event they are broken. pretty sure the default isnt "re-run the election". rules are often broken or badly bent regarding postal votes and voter registration, not enough evidence, not enough impact means we dont rerun those elections. here we have a rule breaking to spend 600k on one side, while the other side managed to spend £5m more legally. do we really believe it had that much impact, accepting the analyst marketing of how great their service is? and if we have a re-run, are we going to prohibit internet advertising and campaigning to make sure its all completely free of other similar companies involvement?

 

[Nixonator]

I think Davis is competent, and I actually quite admire him (I don't often say that about Tories; don't get me started on Fox or Johnson, for instance), the issue with him isn't about incompetence, but unrealistic expectations. Go back to all the tosh he said (Fox was far, far worse) during the referendum campaign, and soon afterwards, and you'll find that he's had to concede on several points. As regards the Remain camp, there are multiple positions and voices within it (a bit like the Leave side), and these are and will continue to shift.
And just to get things clear, we've had a second referendum, the result of which was extremely close, and there are revelations emerging that the winning side engaged in illegalities. The first referendum gave a resoundingly clear result. I'm shifting towards the position of getting behind a third referendum, and will firm up this view if the Electoral Commission declare that between them the Leave campaign broke electoral/referenda law.

Personally I'm rooting for a 4th referendum if we suddenly decide to back out because of a 3rd, and I didn't even vote leave to begin with.

 

[Machiavelli]

I must admit I'm totally conflicted here.

I'm a Remainer but I've never advocated a second referendum. Mostly because you have to accept the results of these things for democracy to function but also because the original campaign was so murky, misleading and divisive.

However, should allegations of fraud or impropriety against the Leave side be proven then we simply have to have another one or a precedent has been set that UK election law is there to be broken, or at least very badly bent, without consequence. If Leavers don't like that I'd question what their response would be if it were the other way around, how an election influenced by a shady analytics company can be considered democratic, and if they are no longer confident in their case.

It'll be horrible though. Even more uncertainty in the markets, communities and families divided up again, the rebirth of UKIP. But I don't see what the point of having regulations is if nothing happens when they are broken.

Yup. That's a more eloquent statement on my movement on this issue.

 

[Guinness Boy]

that depends on what remedy those regulations provide in the event they are broken. pretty sure the default isnt "re-run the election". rules are often broken or badly bent regarding postal votes and voter registration, not enough evidence, not enough impact means we dont rerun those elections. here we have a rule breaking to spend 600k on one side, while the other side managed to spend £5m more legally. do we really believe it had that much impact, accepting the analyst marketing of how great their service is? and if we have a re-run, are we going to prohibit internet advertising and campaigning to make sure its all completely free of other similar companies involvement?

You've cut an entire post down to one line out of context and not answered the questions posed of Leave, instead asking another load yourself. If the allegations about Cambridge Analytica and the Leave team colluding to overspend illegally are proven do you still regard the referendum as democratic. Yes or no?

 

[Machiavelli]

Has Wylie been convicted of being an *enemy of the people* yet ?

I've just had a look at the websites. The Telegraph are ignoring it. The Mail have decided to focus on the death of Wylie's predecessor, and buried information about Brexit at the bottom of that story. Be interesting to see how this evolves but, yes, I'll enjoy witnessing the fallout and things are going to get even more polarised.

 

[beorhthelm]

You've cut an entire post down to one line out of context and not answered the questions posed of Leave, instead asking another load yourself. If the allegations about Cambridge Analytica and the Leave team colluding to overspend illegally are proven do you still regard the referendum as democratic. Yes or no?

no need to be so defensive, just picking up from the conclusion you made. and in answer my response is still the same - what does the law say, and how much weight do we want to give to this overspend. its a conundrum.

 

[Machiavelli]

You've cut an entire post down to one line out of context and not answered the questions posed of Leave, instead asking another load yourself. If the allegations about Cambridge Analytica and the Leave team colluding to overspend illegally are proven do you still regard the referendum as democratic. Yes or no?

I've found to my bitter cost that beorhthelm consistently posts views that pay scant attention to democracy, and only support a libertarian and/or neoliberal perspective.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I've just had a look at the websites. The Telegraph are ignoring it. The Mail have decided to focus on the death of Wylie's predecessor, and buried information about Brexit at the bottom of that story. Be interesting to see how this evolves but, yes, I'll enjoy witnessing the fallout and things are going to get even more polarised.

The Express just put up a story on Blair's Newsnight interview last night - https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/937662/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Tony-Blair-BBC-Newsnight-European-Union

No mention of this today either.

 

[Machiavelli]

The other giving testimony with Wylie is Paul-Olivier Dehaye. I suspect what he's just said will wipe some more billions off Facebook's share price. This is fascinating, devastating and, for me, hilarious.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

I must admit I'm totally conflicted here.

I'm a Remainer but I've never advocated a second referendum. Mostly because you have to accept the results of these things for democracy to function but also because the original campaign was so murky, misleading and divisive.

However, should allegations of fraud or impropriety against the Leave side be proven then we simply have to have another one or a precedent has been set that UK election law is there to be broken, or at least very badly bent, without consequence. If Leavers don't like that I'd question what their response would be if it were the other way around, how an election influenced by a shady analytics company can be considered democratic, and if they are no longer confident in their case.

It'll be horrible though. Even more uncertainty in the markets, communities and families divided up again, the rebirth of UKIP. But I don't see what the point of having regulations is if nothing happens when they are broken.

Pretty much sums up my view. I have never had a problem with a democratic consultation (parliamentary vote or referendum) on the terms of exit as this is a second question and a natural consequence of the process initiated by the first vote but the thought of a re-run of the first vote is not appealing at all. However, rules are there for a reason and I would hope that I would feel the same way if remain had been seen to break them and win.

 

[Guinness Boy]

no need to be so defensive, just picking up from the conclusion you made. and in answer my response is still the same - what does the law say, and how much weight do we want to give to this overspend. its a conundrum.

You're being disingenuous and you haven't answered the question. As someone who's posted regularly about tech you know very well we're not talking about overspending on the team's late night pizzas and the vicar's biscuits. We're talking about precise, targeted campaigns of advertisements, information and, potentially, disinformation, aimed at a group that one could say to be more susceptible, seeing as they had lower educational attainment.

IF PROVEN this is the equivalent of the candidate in a school mock election sidling up to the fat kid after school and offering to buy him a tin of his favourite biscuits in exchange for a vote.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I must admit I'm totally conflicted here.

I'm a Remainer but I've never advocated a second referendum. Mostly because you have to accept the results of these things for democracy to function but also because the original campaign was so murky, misleading and divisive.

However, should allegations of fraud or impropriety against the Leave side be proven then we simply have to have another one or a precedent has been set that UK election law is there to be broken, or at least very badly bent, without consequence. If Leavers don't like that I'd question what their response would be if it were the other way around, how an election influenced by a shady analytics company can be considered democratic, and if they are no longer confident in their case.

It'll be horrible though. Even more uncertainty in the markets, communities and families divided up again, the rebirth of UKIP. But I don't see what the point of having regulations is if nothing happens when they are broken.

As a leaver I kind of agree with you. My concern is that have previous elections / referendums been re-run when the Commission has found wrong doing ? And, most importantly of all in my view, there would need to be some material proof that the illegal actions actually had an affect on the result.

 

[astralavi]

The conclusion is clear. If there is shown to be any foundation to the allegations, the referendum is void, and should be declared so. Cleaning up the mess caused by the unintelligent and wildly over-precipitate haste of the May government to initiate a Brexit process, supported and aided at every step by Jeremy Corbyn, should not be left either to Theresa May or Corbyn. We need to reboot, and in ways that make the use of the ballot box in our country legal, clean and reliable. The EU referendum was infected by the opposite of those things.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Honestly how would remainers feel if the ball was on the other foot, and leavers where calling for a 2nd referendum. Do you honestly think the government would have another referendum, absolutely no chance in hell, regardless of what supposedly went on.