Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+3)?

[TheDecameron]

The BBC, R4 News seemed to be giving equivalence to the Electoral Commission and the individual who channelled cash covertly and against the rules to the Leave campaign and was sanctioned as a result. Apparently a body founded by an Act of Parliament has no more authority than an ex-door to door vacuum cleaner salesman and estate agent. File the Electoral Commission under ‘Enemies of The People’?

 

[eternumviti]

Which group was Leave.EU?

There were two groups, as I recall. One of them might have involved Farage, the other didn't? Where did the infamous red bus come into the equation?

 

[TheDecameron]

I don’t think the bus is the matter in hand . That was a separate deceit.


The Electoral Commission is separately investigating the source Banks’ £8.4m in referendum donations and loans, so you can see why he’s getting hot and bothered- like Trump, he goes on the offensive as a distraction. Vote Leave, the official campaign backed by Johnson and Gove, is also under investigation. Looks like The Bad Boys of Brexit has a few extra members...

 

[SteveS1]

I don’t think the bus is the matter in hand . That was a separate deceit.


The Electoral Commission is separately investigating the source Banks’ £8.4m in referendum donations and loans, so you can see why he’s getting hot and bothered- like Trump, he goes on the offensive as a distraction. Vote Leave, the official campaign backed by Johnson and Gove, is also under investigation. Looks like The Bad Boys of Brexit has a few extra members...

I would suggest daddy-in-law and his connections might be a fertile avenue for the jeweller's eyepiece. Banks is a bully, so expect the usual hot air that he uses whenever regulators get a little close to his insurance interests.

 

[merlin]

Well Jolyon Maugham QC is arguing that Parliament has no way of reliably determining ‘the will of the people’ if the referendum has been shown to have been conducted unfairly and unlawfully. I think he is over egging it a bit, but has a fundamentally sound basis for his argument.

That has been my point as I would consider the overt lies to be deemed "unfair" if we are to reliably determine the "will of the people".

Why, I would ask, is there seemingly no legislation in place that ensures the veracity of electoral claims and political marketing?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

That has been my point as I would consider the overt lies to be deemed "unfair" if we are to reliably determine the "will of the people".

I've now added a link to his Twitter thread on the subject in my previous post. It's also here

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/994875291691573248

 

[merlin]

Thanks Steve.

It's difficult to argue against the logic.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Thanks Steve.

It's difficult to argue against the logic.

I agree. The only thing I think he's over-egging is the scale of the contravention. Leave.EU was permitted to spend £700k, and the proven overspend was around £75k, so 10%. (There is a suggestion the overspend may have been somewhat larger, but not proven). This was considerably smaller than the Vote Leave budget of £7million, so the actual effect of the proven overspend, in context, can't necessarily be shown to invalidate the result. That's the flaw in his argument, I think.

 

[merlin]

I assume that, coming from a legal background, his argument would be that any breach of regulatory spending was a breach and would make the result, legally speaking, invalid.

From a purely logical POV that has to be correct. An analytical ADRV under the WADA antidoping code for instance is still an analytical ADRV (regardless of severity) and nullifies a sporting achievement. The code of strict liability means that it is then up to the guilty party to prove that the ADRV was unintentional and had no impact on performance.

That's how I understand it anyway but it's an example of zero tolerance to cheating (regardless of the level of cheating) when it comes to results.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I assume that, coming from a legal background, his argument would be that any breach of regulatory spending was a breach and would make the result, legally speaking, invalid.

From a purely logical POV that has to be correct. An analytical ADRV under the WADA antidoping code for instance is still an analytical ADRV (regardless of severity) and nullifies a sporting achievement. The code of strict liability means that it is then up to the guilty party to prove that the ADRV was unintentional and had no impact on performance.

That's how I understand it anyway but it's an example of zero tolerance to cheating (regardless of the level of cheating) when it comes to results.

I'm inclined to agree. Any contravention, of any size, means you can't have confidence in the result because you can't show that the rules designed to ensure that result is fair and representative, were followed. I have no problem with the principle, or the conclusion, I just can't go with his assertion that the contravention is massive enough that the result is clearly skewed.

 

[Cav]

There is no way that the Referendum outcome will be deemed invalid because of this, or of Cambridge Analytica or all the lies told by the leave campaign generally.

 

[Seanm]

There is no way that the Referendum outcome will be deemed invalid because of this, or of Cambridge Analytica or all the lies told by the leave campaign generally.

Absolutely. They must know this, the Jolyon types. Are they just venting? Every time they do it a hard Brexit becomes more likely.

 

[droodzilla]

https://infacts.org/divide-and-dither-mays-latest-barmy-brexit-scheme/

Two bold men arguing over a comb (part aleph-one + pi).

 

[PsB]

These are grants, different from loans and different from the 39-45 transactions. I'll dig out some numbers on those but I seem to remember the UK got more loans after the war than Germany.

While looking for the information on war debt, I came across this rough estimate of the material cost of WW2, in 1945 dollars:
USA 341 billion
Germany 272 billion
Soviet Union 192 billion
England 120 billion
Italy 94 billion
Japan 56 billion
I'm amazed by the low Japanese number.

 

[kendo]

While looking for the information on war debt, I came across this rough estimate of the material cost of WW2, in 1945 dollars:
USA 341 billion
Germany 272 billion
Soviet Union 192 billion
England 120 billion
Italy 94 billion
Japan 56 billion
I'm amazed by the low Japanese number.

"I'm amazed by the low Japanese number."

Frugal Fascism?

 

[TheDecameron]

"I'm amazed by the low Japanese number."

Frugal Fascism?

They saved on ammo by rolling their sleeves up and doing a lot of bayonetting.

 

[merlin]

While looking for the information on war debt, I came across this rough estimate of the material cost of WW2, in 1945 dollars:
USA 341 billion
Germany 272 billion
Soviet Union 192 billion
England 120 billion
Italy 94 billion
Japan 56 billion
I'm amazed by the low Japanese number.

There are people who make a lot of money out of war.

 

[eternumviti]

While looking for the information on war debt, I came across this rough estimate of the material cost of WW2, in 1945 dollars:
USA 341 billion
Germany 272 billion
Soviet Union 192 billion
England 120 billion
Italy 94 billion
Japan 56 billion
I'm amazed by the low Japanese number.

Paper houses...

 

[MikeMA]

While looking for the information on war debt, I came across this rough estimate of the material cost of WW2, in 1945 dollars:
USA 341 billion
Germany 272 billion
Soviet Union 192 billion
England 120 billion
Italy 94 billion
Japan 56 billion
I'm amazed by the low Japanese number.

Wasn't it the Japanese who pioneered 'just in time' delivery to save on inventory costs?

 

[Weekender]

While looking for the information on war debt, I came across this rough estimate of the material cost of WW2, in 1945 dollars:
USA 341 billion
Germany 272 billion
Soviet Union 192 billion
England 120 billion
Italy 94 billion
Japan 56 billion
I'm amazed by the low Japanese number.

Catch 22.