Reply To: Elections aftermath


Home Forums Discussion Forum Elections aftermath Reply To: Elections aftermath

#49749
cimarrón
Guest

Kim,

Craig, himself, was unable to get a satisfactory response from 38 Degrees regarding a petition targetting Laura Kuenssberg. When he asked for evidence of the ‘sexist abuse’ which they claimed as the reason for taking down the petition.

Realistically, I doubt there is any way of touching the manipulators at the top of the chain. Even if there were an angle by which any of them could be brought to court, the chances of justice are very slim indeed. The judiciary are part of the Establishment (look at how they can mistreat Julian Assange with impunity).

I thought this comment on Craig’s blog by Ken Kenn could be something worth further looking into:
“What are the odds that an increase of just 1.2% in the overall Tory vote could land so precisely in so many ex-Labour-voting Constituencies that the Tories won by less that two thousand votes?
Distribute 78 (the Tory Majority) into 650 seats and that equals 12% of all seats.
The Brexit Party helped but, by crikey – the chips fell against Labour alright – to a phenomenal degree.
Any good psephologists out there to put us right about distribution?
That was one hell of a strange distribution of luck on 1.2 % of an increase.
It could have gone anywhere.”

And, Ross, below that, says “The odds get even more astronomical when you consider that those votes fell, not only exactly where they needed them, but concomitantly in seats with low voter turnout.”

Some commenter on this blog, or a colleague, or a tutor might be or know a ‘psephologist’, or a statistician, someone able to say whether there is strong reason to doubt the randomness of the figures.

A noteworthy result could arouse interest and awaken people’s suspicion.