I don't know what point you're trying to make; that doesn't tell us anything more about why, except what we've already said.

The entire basis of policing in the two countries is different. This is reflected in their attitude and use of force, which is relevant when evaluating any new police power or tool.

Great contribution, very informative

I don't really know the legal arguments that make surveillance of public places into searches, but let's assume they exist and are valid... I still don't think people would be that mad about it if you thought you could trust your police to use the information half-way responsibly.

Well we don't help ourselves by having a new prime minister every thirty seconds...

I don't understand how that leads to your conclusion. If it's because of the Tory philosophy that the state is bad, surely the real aim would have been to reduce the power of the state?

The reason I'm asking is because I think people tend to be overly cynical and won't accept the possibility that people disagree with them honestly, finding it easier to believe that they disagree dishonestly. To me it seems perfectly plausible that Tories thought they could reduce the power of the state, do something good for ordinary people, and expand their voting base, without realising/believing that this approach would lead to many (but not most) of those assets essentially becoming investments.

What makes you say that's the real aim, rather than the stated aims?

Well I was saving it to incorporate into an avatar for a web forum, as was the style at the time.

I don't think Andy Burnham, or for that matter anyone in the Labour party, or anyone outside whatever iteration of Farage's party and the Tories (and of those, not all of them) treated it like a "divine mandate" or with reverence.

Look, here we're all annoyed about Brexit, because it's shit and we knew it would be. We'd like it to be reversed as soon as possible. But undoing the most significant change to the UK's constitution a mere 6 years after it was enacted and 10 years after it was decided is unthinkable. So we're not being cautious now because of "reverence" for Brexiter's preferences, but because it is a think that deserves to be treated with caution. It was a decision that was taken with rank recklessness, but unfortunately that doesn't mean we can undo it with the same recklessness. That won't solve the problems; it will help cement the idea that membership of the EU, or other serious, difficult, significant changes to the country can be done and undone on a whim.

My friend arranged a mortgage on his phone. He is a traitor to our generation!

Well said. I like your example, too.

40% is quite a lot, and probably more of the original 52% would regain their opinion if Brexit came to the fore again, rather than being sat on. He's right to be cautious!