To wonder wtf is going on in Wales?

[brexitstolemyfuture]

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-labour-poll-wales-yogov-majority-seats-first-time-century-a7699776.html%3famp

Tories predicted to get a majority for the first time in a century. I thought this was fake news, but no it's real

I assume you're fine with Arron Banks funding of Leave?

Have you looked at the sources of UKIP's funding? Transparent they are not!
Was Arran Banks subverting democracy when he not only funded a political movement, but organised a huge, opaque social media campaign that made creative use of psychometric testing and meta data gathered in a surreptitious way? (He probably was, actually. But it was just about legal.)

He bankrolled a party, which stood on its own manifesto.

Gina Miller's 'movement' is chucking money behind individual MPs that her 'movement' believes are "Best for Britain" (her words).

Happy with any open funding of political parties. And the funding of individual MPs has a long history-particularly, incidentally, in the Conservative party.

Sorry, "open funding of political parties or MPs"

Forgive me , no I didn't see her speech , where was it ? What does her 'movement' stand for in her words Copper

It was on all the different news channels yesterday frumpet, and she was on Andrew Neil's show last week - as well as numerous news articles (print & online).

We are getting to the turning point where MN turns into an echo chamber and then ultimately blows up after the GE with wails of "but how!, I dont even know any Tories apart from the ones who spit at the poor or are racist!!!!"

Nail on the head from Justanotherlurker

Oh, look. But this is completely different , obviously because he is targeting "bad" MPs.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/arron-banks-and-steve-hilton-teaming-up-to-oust-100-remain-backing-mps-at-next-election_uk_58d4fbece4b03787d3571476

At least Gina Miller's campaign is transparent - you can see what she is doing and how, and the donations will be declared to the electoral commission. even if you don't personally agree with her politics. She is not hiding her support for a political movement by clandestinely providing undeclared "services" in an attempt to get around political donation rules.

What about foreign hedge fund billionaires? Are they allowed to involve themselves with our political process?

Have you heard of Robert Mercer, CopperRose?

“Whatevs,” says Banks when I bring up the Electoral Commission. “I don’t give a monkey’s what the Electoral Commission says.”

“We were just cleverer than the regulators and the politicians. Of course we were.”

....He didn’t break the law, he says. He “pushed the boundary of everything, right to the edge. It was war.” And later: “You’re looking for a smoking gun but there’s a smoking gun on every table! And no one cares. No one cares!”

Long, but interesting read if you are really bothered by "subverison of democracy":
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/arron-banks-interview-brexit-ukip-far-right-trump-putin-russia

Also this is fascinating: www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/us-billionaire-mercer-helped-back-brexit

Oh, look. But this is completely different , obviously because he is targeting "bad" MPs.

No, it's the same thing.

Please do point out though where I posted that I support it, because I can't for the life of me recall doing so.

What about foreign hedge fund billionaires? Are they allowed to involve themselves with our political process? Have you heard of Robert Mercer, CopperRose?

To be fair, he's just a right wing George Soros. George Soros has been doing the same thing for a lot longer for the liberal left. It's just a bit of balance really. It would be nice if it happened on neither side, but it does.

I didn't mean to assume anything. I asked you whether you equally condemned Bank's political activities, and you answered that "He bankrolled a party, which stood on its own manifesto."
So I pointed out that he did (and is doing) a lot more than that.
Whats more, many leave Conservative/Ukip politicians are being supported in much less obvious ways, with donations coming from much less transparent sources than Gina Miller's campaign. Why shouldn't there be an open, transparent movement the other way? Miller's campaign is helping to level the playing field that has been heavily tipped already, by people the public has never heard of.

Whats new, Bill, is the weaponising of private data. Its not just about financial donations (although these get incredibly murky where Banks, and Mellon etc are concerned).
I can't understand why so much outrage would be directed towards a British citizen (who actually lives in Britain!) campaigning in an honest, transparent way, openly crowdfunding the campaign with donations from the public, without also mentioning what the other side are doing. Gina Miller is not subverting democracy.

I can't understand why so much outrage would be directed towards a British citizen (who actually lives in Britain!) campaigning in an honest, transparent way, openly crowdfunding the campaign with donations from the public, without also mentioning what the other side are doing. Gina Miller is not subverting democracy.

I think she is attempting to manipulate democracy, therefore I said as much.

Feel free to condemn different people for doing so too - no one is stopping you.

Wrt "...without also mentioning what the other side are doing."
Well, I am not the BBC.

I am not legally nor morally bound to give equal weight to all arguments or sides, and in fact I was simply stating my own interpretation/opinion of her actions.

Just marking my place in this, I have nothing constructive to add atm

I stand with Bertrand though as an equal ops and all parties scoffer (I like that!). I just retain extra contempt for parties who wish to take away the small amount of support I recieve as a disabled person who cannot work. Where I am could happen to nearly anyone - when DH and I worked we had a good income, now we are utterly reliant on the state.

Whats new, Bill, is the weaponising of private data.

It's not weaponising data FFS! Big Data is already collected, if Labour had been offered it they would have used it, and are using it now.

But huge amounts of data and modern communication methods weren't around in the past at the same scale as they are now, so it is new.
Quite probably other political parties would have taken advantage of it in the past, if it was available to them and if it occurred to them to do so. But it wasn't, so they didn't.
There have always been wealthy individuals who donate large sums of money to political movements/parties, and there have always been attempts to circumnavigate electoral rules. But UK electoral law was not designed with today's technology in mind. The challenges facing democracy now are different, and they are new, and they are fascinating.
Its not a left/right issue, it should concern us all.

This is from the article I linked to upthread:

“Whatevs,” says Banks when I bring up the Electoral Commission. “I don’t give a monkey’s what the Electoral Commission says.”

To be clear, the Electoral Commission rules aren’t guidelines for the tombola at the village fete. He’s talking about UK electoral law. Electoral law that Damian Tambini, director of the media policy project at the LSE, says isn’t fit for purpose. Tambini met with the regulators and other parties and they’ve joined forces this week to call for a parliamentary commission to urgently review it.

Modern online campaigning has fundamentally changed everything, Tambini tells me. “And the existing framework is utterly weak and helpless.” The cost of building databases, money poured into third-party campaigns, offshore spending – these were either largely or totally unregulated. There is no longer any way, with current legislation, of guaranteeing a free and fair election.

Or as Banks puts it: “We were just cleverer than the regulators and the politicians. Of course we were.”

I'm trying not to go all tinfoil hatted about it, but these are interesting times...

I'm trying not to go all tinfoil hatted about it, but these are interesting times...

I'm glad it's being investigated though for possible breach of Data protection, but I don't think that any wrongdoing has taken place but it's definitely something that needs to be discussed. We'll likely see more and more of it in the coming years and it has the potential to have a sizable impact on almost everything we do so I think it's important that it's brought into the public eye and thoroughly assessed.

I wouldn't be surprised if Remain were using it too tbh and if they weren't then they should have been. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's clearly an effective approach and it's likely to become an important part of political campaign strategy in the future so the sooner people get to grips with it the better.

Also all the talk about it helping along trump is ignoring the fact that Ted Cruz was a customer before hand.

The biggest weakness is our electoral law is the postal vote on demand. Only people with a professional need should be allowed it such as medics and the police (as police leave is cancelled on election day) and of course the candidates themselves and such election staff as genuinely cannot get to the polls.

Proxy votes should be limited to two per elector, both at the polling station where that elector votes so that it can be enforced.

And photo ID should be required from every voter at the polls.

What's wrong with postal voting? what about disabled people etc? I do a postal vote because I rarely can get to my polling station on polling day due to working a long way from home.

Nothing is wrong with postal voting, I do it too due to unpredictable work travel requirements.

And photo ID should be required from every voter at the polls.

No it shouldn't - plenty of people don't have "photo ID" and I don't support any compulsion for them to get some.

"Nothing is wrong with postal voting, I do it too due to unpredictable work travel requirements."

It's good for certain people, but I regret that it became available for everyone. It's very open for corruption. A dominant person in a household can control a whole family's votes, for example.

"plenty of people don't have "photo ID" and I don't support any compulsion for them to get some"

It's ridiculous how easy it is to fraud here. Last time I voted I didn't have my polling card. I asked them how they knew I was who I said I was. They answered that they didn't, but that if another 'me' came to vote, they wouldn't be able to! If you have a friend who's away, you can easily just go to their polling station and claim to be them. It's ridiculous.

It's ridiculous how easy it is to fraud here. Last time I voted I didn't have my polling card. I asked them how they knew I was who I said I was. They answered that they didn't, but that if another 'me' came to vote, they wouldn't be able to! If you have a friend who's away, you can easily just go to their polling station and claim to be them. It's ridiculous.

This line of thinking is what ruins everything.

Just because things are possible doesn't make them happen automatically.

I prefer the version of life where I don't need to be grilled to fuck about who I am when I go to vote because we assume people are innocent - because most of the time, most people are. How the flip do you think you're going to reliably prove everyone's actual ID without a massive amount of extra time money and hassle? And you are solving a "problem" that doesn't even exist for the most part - most of us, by far the vast majority are just voting properly.

Just because things are possible doesn't make them happen automatically.

There has been quite few cases of voter fraud in certain constituents already, there is nothing wrong with it in principal but it needs tightening up

There has been quite few cases of voter fraud in certain constituents already

How many? Not enough to justify millions and millions in compulsory photo ID for all (which can still be forged).

My postal vote has had the checks enhanced - I have to sign and the signature has to match what is held on file, some LAs have been introducing more stringent checks . My postal vote is arguably less subject to fraud than if I voted in person. I am prepared to trade a tiny amount in fraud for the ease of the current system thanks.