Zarlak
my face causes global warming
What?What has this actually got to do with you personally. You are not an MP are you. Hold your head up man.
What?What has this actually got to do with you personally. You are not an MP are you. Hold your head up man.
Ah I'm not in any country there right now. I'm wondering more as to will our right to live and work elsewhere immediately cease as of October 31st or will there be some transitional period i.e I can move to an EU country as a UK citizen from Canada rather than having to return to the UK briefly because we chose to cut our noses off leaving me without an option to go elsewhere.
The shy tories error remains though, because exit polls on those two general elections underestimated the tory outcome. Exit polls taking place at the same time and place as the actual vote.
The poll of polls did show Leave with a majority in early June 2016, but it had apparently turned into a 52:48% lead to Remain by the time the actual vote had taken place
In reality, obviously Leave was the 52:48 victor
Probably.Thanks for clearing this up!
Also this phrase will become a new part of political lexicon, especially during the upcoming 2nd referendum or General Election.
It was the fact you're asking people for qualitative data whilst coming out with gem's like this...Not sure of your point.
In reality, no one has an absolute clue on here how a second referendum will fall. People were pretty confident of a remain victory first time round & when it comes to the day at the ballot box, it can all change as we saw three years ago.remember that many 2016 Leave voters have died since then
I do not see a convincing theory in either of those articles to suggest a systematic bias in the polls in favour of remain. Whilst early polls suggested remain would win, the gap narrowed nearer the vote, with John Curtice calling it 'to close to call' only a few days before the vote. Taking into account that trend (of leave gains), I do not think the result was all that anamolous.
The demographic changes put remain in a slight lead but turnout and how many people change their vote might not show well in polls.It was the fact you're asking people for qualitative data whilst coming out with gem's like this...
In reality, no one has an absolute clue on here how a second referendum will fall. People were pretty confident of a remain victory first time round & when it comes to the day at the ballot box, it can all change as we saw three years ago.
It's all about turnout, that's the reality. Some of these polls i've seen recently have such a low base of respondents (less than 1% in many cases), that the sample size makes it difficult to imagine it correlating or reflecting to the actual turnout.The demographic changes put remain in a slight lead but turnout and how many people change their vote might not show well in polls.
As Ive said, my point is drawn from well known quant data. Ive invited you to look it up.It was the fact you're asking people for qualitative data whilst coming out with gem's like this...
The first result on google shows a net swing of only 25,000 people based on your 'well known' quantitative data.As Ive said, my point is drawn from well known quant data. Ive invited you to look it up.
That is the same source as mine ("see: What UK Thinks")... except the economist seem to have done after the fact reviewing of the data to "fix" the polls so that they (hopefully) more accurately show the public opinion at the time.
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdfThe Inquiry considered eight different potential causes of the polling miss and assessed the evidence in support of each of them. Our conclusion is that the primary cause of the polling miss in 2015 was unrepresentative samples. The methods the pollsters used to collect samples of voters systematically over-represented Labour supporters and under-represented Conservative supporters. The statistical adjustment procedures applied to the raw data did not mitigate this basic problem to any notable degree. The other putative causes can have made, at most, only a small contribution to the total error
We were able to replicate all published estimates for the final polls using raw microdata, so we can exclude the possibility that flawed analysis, or use of inaccurate weighting targets on the part of the pollsters, contributed to the polling miss.
Then you should do your research with more effort and due diligence than 'first result in google'!!The first result on google shows a net swing of only 25,000 people based on your 'well known' quantitative data.
We only have one data point to go on, so it's hard to say for certain.I do not see a convincing theory in either of those articles to suggest a systematic bias in the polls in favour of remain. Whilst early polls suggested remain would win, the gap narrowed nearer the vote, with John Curtice calling it 'to close to call' only a few days before the vote. Taking into account that trend (of leave gains), I do not think the result was all that anamolous.
It was quicker than trawling through 1500 pages on this thread as you couldn't link your qualitative data when asked. However that was an article from the Independent (pro remain site). The reality of the maths though is that the theory on leave voters dieing, only equates to a net 25,000 swing. Which, if based on previous turnout numbers, it 0.07% of the voting base. Nothing to write home about.Then you should do your research with more effort and due diligence than 'first result in google'!!
I'm not believing anything as there's so much shite being spoken on both sides, i'm just calling you out on this qualitative data. Which is nothing more than opinion at the moment, and looking at the numbers based on poll sample rates (PollBase) is so small that for them to call out a near 50/50 split, shows the difficulty in opinion polls and taking them as any form of indicator.Plus it's also very logical and intuitive to think so: Leave was based on a pack of lies. Lies have been exposed. Audience is better informed. Some Leave voters died, some new remain voters, Brexit anyway is a nightmare to implement. What do you think is going to happen?
But of course you're welcome to believe whatever you like, based on whatever you like.
You wanted data. I gave you data. There is no superior source than Kellner.It was quicker than trawling through 1500 pages on this thread as you couldn't link your qualitative data when asked. However that was an article from the Independent (pro remain site). The reality of the maths though is that the theory on leave voters dieing, only equates to a net 25,000 swing. Which, if based on previous turnout numbers, it 0.07% of the voting base. Nothing to write home about.
I'm not believing anything as there's so much shite being spoken on both sides, i'm just calling you out on this qualitative data. Which is nothing more than opinion at the moment, and looking at the numbers based on poll sample rates (PollBase) is so small that for them to call out a near 50/50 split, shows the difficulty in opinion polls and taking them as any form of indicator.
The point was that you, and many others, cannot accurately conclude what a second referendum would look like (on an event that doesn't look like will happen). You have some educated guesses, but they're based on extremely narrow sample rates and some opinion which carries some logic. Which given the situation of Brexit there is enough narrative out there to support any stance. Recalling this three years ago, these were the same polls that was saying that the UK was going to vote remain at the ballot box.
You're welcome. You'll hopefully learn to read into absolute numbers, and not rely on percentages. In quantitative science, it's called the absolute change or the relative change. It's easy in discussions around Brexit to get caught up in the relative change. The absolute change is where the difference matters.Yawn. Good luck
Thanks for teaching me. I’ll be eternally grateful and very much improved.You're welcome. You'll hopefully learn to read into absolute numbers, and not rely on percentages. In quantitative science, it's called the absolute change or the relative change. It's easy in discussions around Brexit to get caught up in the relative change. The absolute change is where the difference matters.
I really really REALLY want Remain to win, therefore it is true.It was quicker than trawling through 1500 pages on this thread as you couldn't link your qualitative data when asked. However that was an article from the Independent (pro remain site). The reality of the maths though is that the theory on leave voters dieing, only equates to a net 25,000 swing. Which, if based on previous turnout numbers, it 0.07% of the voting base. Nothing to write home about.
I'm not believing anything as there's so much shite being spoken on both sides, i'm just calling you out on this qualitative data. Which is nothing more than opinion at the moment, and looking at the numbers based on poll sample rates (PollBase) is so small that for them to call out a near 50/50 split, shows the difficulty in opinion polls and taking them as any form of indicator.
The point was that you, and many others, cannot accurately conclude what a second referendum would look like (on an event that doesn't look like will happen). You have some educated guesses, but they're based on extremely narrow sample rates and some opinion which carries some logic. Which given the situation of Brexit there is enough narrative out there to support any stance. Recalling this three years ago, these were the same polls that was saying that the UK was going to vote remain at the ballot box.
ReferendumsNor are elections and referenda.
Polls aren't always reliable.
Referendi surely?Referendums
Given that the referendum wasn't Labour v Tory and a significant number of northern Labour voters voted leave and southern Tories voted remain I doubt the validity of conclusions based on the previous years GE being applied to the ref, especially considering what we can see in the polling and what we know about the methods the leave campaign employed in the final few weeks r.e. digital media advertising and overspending.That is the same source as mine ("see: What UK Thinks")... except the economist seem to have done after the fact reviewing of the data to "fix" the polls so that they (hopefully) more accurately show the public opinion at the time.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/
Both your economist source and my "What UK Thinks" poll of polls source are correct, because they are the same. The inquiry into the failures of the 2015 polls (published in early 2016) found thus:
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf
I.e. the "shy Tory" phenomenon isn't due to people lying about their voting intentions, but because the pollsters were using poorly designed models.
As opposed to a snapshot or an average of snapshots (poll of polls), I meant the underlying trend the weeks leading up to the vote indicated growth in leave share.We only have one data point to go on, so it's hard to say for certain.
But looking into that one data point, the "WhatTheUKThinks" poll of the last 6 opinion polls showed a 2% lead for remain, and what we actually got was a 2% lead for leave, so a 4% swing!
The Huffposts "poll of polls" also showed a Remain win, albeit by 0.5% giving a 2% swing.
Also - I don't understand your point about "Taking into account that trend (of leave gains)" - in reality, the poll of polls showed a clear last minute trend of remain gains (both the Huffpost poll of polls and the WhatUKThinks poll of polls show this). Although I guess that depends on what scale you are looking at - as over a scale of weeks it's probably pretty negligible.
Still, the point remains. The poll of polls on the day of the referendum has Remain winning. In fact it may be helpful just to look at this:
5 different "poll of polls", all with different weightings any systems, all showing Remain winning, all of which got it wrong.
This is where we currently sit
+1With Boris actually getting a deal from Europe and it looks as if it has the numbers to pass Parliment, it really looks as if theyre simply trying to block Brexit.
Not being allowed to vote on it, trying to wster it down by tacking on amendment after amendment.
At least vote on the fecking thing.
It's a shitty deal that may well be pushed through purely because of people being scared that otherwise we could drop out without a deal. Let's not forget, what he's agreed is a hard Brexit, just not the hardest possible one.With Boris actually getting a deal from Europe and it looks as if it has the numbers to pass Parliment, it really looks as if theyre simply trying to block Brexit.
Not being allowed to vote on it, trying to wster it down by tacking on amendment after amendment.
At least vote on the fecking thing.
Yes I think that's a good summary... I do wonder what will happen today if the speaker does not allow the vote in the format the government wants (you can make arguments both ways)Brexit: It is very unlikely that the PM will get his way today - here's why
http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-a-delay-could-get-boris-johnson-the-election-he-craves-11840965
Bit of analysis on today’s and the weeks events. Another interesting week in Westminster ahead!
They did?With Boris actually getting a deal from Europe and it looks as if it has the numbers to pass Parliment, it really looks as if theyre simply trying to block Brexit.
Not being allowed to vote on it, trying to wster it down by tacking on amendment after amendment.
At least vote on the fecking thing.
Their job in parliament is to scrutinise legislation before it becomes law. It's an incredibly complex deal which will have a profound effect on the country for the next century. They want MPs to vote on it to "gerronwivit" and that is absolute madness. It needs to be dissected, debated and fully understood before any vote happens and that includes a review of the impact assessment they are currently refusing to release.With Boris actually getting a deal from Europe and it looks as if it has the numbers to pass Parliment, it really looks as if theyre simply trying to block Brexit.
Not being allowed to vote on it, trying to wster it down by tacking on amendment after amendment.
At least vote on the fecking thing.
But there isn't ANY deal that would look good to Remainers, that's the problem, certainly not one that resembles what 52% voted for.It's a shitty deal that may well be pushed through purely because of people being scared that otherwise we could drop out without a deal. Let's not forget, what he's agreed is a hard Brexit, just not the hardest possible one.
But its Brexit itself thats shitty. There was never a deal that could be brought back that everyone agreed on or would leave Britain on the plus side of the argument.It's a shitty deal that may well be pushed through purely because of people being scared that otherwise we could drop out without a deal. Let's not forget, what he's agreed is a hard Brexit, just not the hardest possible one.
Did they get this timeframe before they rejected Mays deal?Their job in parliament is to scrutinise legislation before it becomes law. It's an incredibly complex deal which will have a profound effect on the country for the next century. They want MPs to vote on it to "gerronwivit" and that is absolute madness. It needs to be dissected, debated and fully understood before any vote happens and that includes a review of the impact assessment they are currently refusing to release.
If this deal is as good as they say it is, they should be confident with it having 3 months of scrutiny before going to the public to ask "Is this the Brexit you voted for?". Forcing this along in the space of a couple of weeks with blind faith that things will be OK is recklessly irresponsible.
You're grouping together half the country under a single label and saying they all would only accept their perfect option. Why? Personally I'm part of that hardcore Remain group that want nothing to do with anything less than revokation, but I'm well aware that a deal that kept the UK in the customs union would attract a large number of 'Remainers'.But there isn't ANY deal that would look good to Remainers, that's the problem, certainly not one that resembles what 52% voted for.