That will make you quite like a typical gammonI'm convinced brexit is going to be the thing that gives me blood pressure issues and male pattern baldness. That article
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Not sure on the 10 year point. But I think they'd have us back despite us being a pain in the bum. We are too big to ignore if we re-applied. I think Tusk already said as much.
As someone who voted remain how can you be happy with the Tories pursuing some far right hard brexit? If you really want to go by ‘will of the people’ it was 48-52 so therefore it should barely be a brexit, it should be a very soft brexit.
But that's the thing @NWRed - the shy tory phenomenon doesn't actually exist.
At least - not in the form everyone thought it did. After the 2015 General Election the looked again at their data and found that it wasn't Tory voters saying they were going to vote one way (Labour or someone else) then actually voting for Conservatives on the day and ten lying about it afterwards. (or that was a very small part of it).
Instead, they found that their models were wrong.
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf
2015 General Election age breakdown
2016 Referendum Age Breakdown
2015 - failed to predict the result
2016 - failed to predict the result
Both of those events had a system error which swung the votes towards the elder demographics choice.
Is the same thing happening again? Well we don't know. And there is no way to know, unless we have a 2nd referendum.
I ain't a stats man, but I'm fairly certain you can't smash together 3 polls with different methodologies and treat them as one mega poll.
My boss came out with "Before the vote, Nobody was even talking about doing a deal before leaving"
Yet now people like you tell us repeatedly that leaving the single market was always the plan and every who voted leave definitely knew and wanted this.
You're either lying or ignorant.
People just remember what they want to remember and hear what they want to hear
I was just googling to try and find an answer. The ads I was getting at the same time “you don’t have to go through this alone. Therapy treatment..”
The "poll of polls" people would have access to the raw data, or can re-create it.
This is the table of the polls in the run-up to the referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opini...dom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016
Of the 16 or so polls there, only 3 show a "leave" win - by 1%, 2% and 2%. The others show remain wins, by 4%, 10%, 2%, 3%, 8%, 6%, 1%, 7%, 3% and 1%.
As it turned out, Leave won by nearly 4%, meaning every single poll in that list - including the ones that predicted a Leave win - underestimated the Leave vote.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
Last edited:
Agreed. But May's deal (which was softer than this) was voted down three times. In my view Labour (following May's concessions on employment and the environment) should have voted it through. It was in their gift to do so. It would have also been more of centrist view and isolated the extremes in the house like the ERG and DUP. They didn't and so the thinking was - and not without merit - that Labour viewed this whole thing as a political opportunity and would never vote for any Tory proposal. That being the case the only way then was to bring the headbangers on board and so we have what we have (apart from the DUP don't like it). However, it is still better than no-deal and unless there is some motion to bring May's deal back then they should vote it through. Either that or vote for a GE.
I'm a remainer, and I'll be a remainer until the cow comes home and lays a golden egg, but if we are relying on polls showing a 52:48 lead to Remain... I'm extremely wary of that.
I was just googling to try and find an answer. The ads I was getting at the same time “you don’t have to go through this alone. Therapy treatment..”
My drinking has increased in the last three years that is a fact.
Go ask your local MP. Or do some research.
Much like people should do in elections as to what their preferred political party stands for and how it affects them.
Or does no one know anything?
If we left with no deal back in March having told the EU to go feck itself he would still be 'campaigning' for a harder stance saying we screwed over the little man and sold out to the *cough*globalists*cough*. The guy is a demagogue and won't stop until he's made irrelevant by the public becoming sick of him.
Diplomats tend to love being in the limelight. An this role offers it in abundance
Bercow is not playing .
As I thought.
No it doesn't, they showed the responses of the voters as they were at the time, however many polls exclude undecided and refused from their results, the column that states "undecided" if pretty key as N/A implies they were excluded from their results.The "poll of polls" people would have access to the raw data, or can re-create it.
This is the table of the polls in the run-up to the referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opini...dom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016
Of the 16 or so polls there, only 3 show a "leave" win - by 1%, 2% and 2%. The others show remain wins, by 4%, 10%, 2%, 3%, 8%, 6%, 1%, 7%, 3% and 1%.
As it turned out, Leave won by nearly 4%, meaning every single poll in that least - including the ones that predicted a Leave win - underestimated the Leave vote.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
As I understand it targetted facebook ads and other digital media advertising in the last couple of weeks swung the referendum in leave's favour by convincing the significant number of undecided voters to vote leave. As I said, many of the polls exclude undecided/refused from their results, so a poll that shows a 4% remain lead and reported as 52% - 48% may actually be 46.8% - 43.2% with 10% undecided, so if 90% of the undecided voters voted leave due to seeing ads on facebook etc then the poll was accurate.
Last edited:
Does anyone else think it might have been better if it was illegal for MPs to either try to stop brexit have a policy of asking for a 2nd referendum.
Bear with me.
MPs get the power through the people they represent. If the people voted say for brexit, then who are MPs to defy that?
By taking that option away, it means the two 'remain' camps (soft brexit & 2nd referendum) become one camp (soft brexit camp). By taking it away, the motivation to keep kicking brexit down the road disappears. Instead we could just find a majority for a soft brexit and live in the Norway option.
Of course there needs to be some sort of mechanism to allow the public to vote for remain even after voting for brexit. This is a democracy after all.
So maybe the power to give referendums shouldn't be with MPs but with some sort of.. council. Maybe a citizen's assembly could be created every 12 months which could (broadly speaking) set the agenda for MPs and find topics which they think the public should have a referendum (or 2nd referendum) on.
Bear with me.
MPs get the power through the people they represent. If the people voted say for brexit, then who are MPs to defy that?
By taking that option away, it means the two 'remain' camps (soft brexit & 2nd referendum) become one camp (soft brexit camp). By taking it away, the motivation to keep kicking brexit down the road disappears. Instead we could just find a majority for a soft brexit and live in the Norway option.
Of course there needs to be some sort of mechanism to allow the public to vote for remain even after voting for brexit. This is a democracy after all.
So maybe the power to give referendums shouldn't be with MPs but with some sort of.. council. Maybe a citizen's assembly could be created every 12 months which could (broadly speaking) set the agenda for MPs and find topics which they think the public should have a referendum (or 2nd referendum) on.
Just to confirm what we already knew...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
My point was that as the vote wasn't split down party lines (at least not completely) the reasons for under representing Tory voters in previous GE polls wouldn't, even if correct for the referendum, hold true. However I would say that as far as I know it's always been correct that elder voters are known to be more motivated to vote and this is usually taken into account by pollsters. If they underestimate voter enthusiam on one side in particular then that will obviously skew polls.But that's the thing @NWRed - the shy tory phenomenon doesn't actually exist.
At least - not in the form everyone thought it did. After the 2015 General Election the looked again at their data and found that it wasn't Tory voters saying they were going to vote one way (Labour or someone else) then actually voting for Conservatives on the day and ten lying about it afterwards. (or that was a very small part of it).
Instead, they found that their models were wrong.
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf
2015 General Election age breakdown
2016 Referendum Age Breakdown
2015 - failed to predict the result
2016 - failed to predict the result
Both of those events had a system error which swung the votes towards the elder demographics choice.
Is the same thing happening again? Well we don't know. And there is no way to know, unless we have a 2nd referendum.
I won't repost it but my previous post states my explanation for the polling 'error' in 2016.
That's.... possible but doesn't explain the same thing happening in 2015 general election, which was subsequently completely explained by correcting the polling companies saying their models were inadequate.
Are we really saying that targeted Facebook ads can change the minds of millions of people - but not just change their minds - change their minds suddenly in a way opinion polls taken *the day before* can't pick up on?
That option existed when the legislation for the referendum was written, and it wasn't taken as it was made advisory on parliament not binding.
It is worth noting that had it been binding on parliament the illegal actions of the leave campaigns would have meant the vote result could have been legally overturned and the referendum reran.
No it isn't. It would be though if supporting Manchester United (and RedCafe membership) involved some kind of axiomatic connection to voting, or advocating, for Remain in the Brexit debate.
They do indeed, and if I were an American I wouldn't be particularly enamoured by having Trump as my country's my head of state either. That said, you have plenty of people contributing to said thread(s) who either aren't American, or don't live in America...so how representative is it?
I mean you're essentially saying this thread is pointless because most of the posters in it share the same viewpoint, right? It's incredibly stupid to think that.
Facebook ads can and did change people's minds, and I'm sure the polling companies made significant errors in estimating the enthusiasm of the voters on the leave side and so maybe underrepresented their turn out in their models, putting the error in their results at the extremes of the quoted margins. However a 4 point lead for remiain in a poll with a +/- 3% error margin, at the extremes of enthusiasm, would give a leave lead of 2, not that far away from the actual result.
I found this tool rather good for looking at assumptions effecting reported results vs actual results
https://yougov.co.uk/turnout-o-meter/?turnout=72&overallremaing=-1&agefactor=1&classfactor=1
Not many variables to play with but interesting non the less.
Some European nations.
But the poll of polls shouldn't have a margin of error of 3%, it should have a margin of error of around 1%.
A 52:48% Remain victory shouldn't become a 52:48% Leave victory in that scenario.
So then we go back to your point about the targetted adverts on the undecideds. Maybe the undecideds weren't 50:50 Remain/Leave. Maybe they were 25:75 Remain/Leave.
But if they were, they didn't show up at any point. Even in this *after the fact* survey from yougov (the closest thing to an exit poll as we're going to get)
which heavily suggests systemic errors in their models, rather than "don't knows" becoming "leavers" at a higher ratio. Because if that was the case, they should have shown up here.
That's why it's better to look at those polls which were (and are) conducted anonymously.The "poll of polls" people would have access to the raw data, or can re-create it.
This is the table of the polls in the run-up to the referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opini...dom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016
Of the 16 or so polls there, only 3 show a "leave" win - by 1%, 2% and 2%. The others show remain wins, by 4%, 10%, 2%, 3%, 8%, 6%, 1%, 7%, 3% and 1%.
As it turned out, Leave won by nearly 4%, meaning every single poll in that least - including the ones that predicted a Leave win - underestimated the Leave vote.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
They tended to show a higher result for Leave.
I'm a stats man: yes you can. Of course you treat them as a Poll of polls, not as literally one poll.
Sure, but that that's the point isn't it? Doesn't a poll of polls average the different data points from the other polls with their own individual margins of error not shove all the underlying data into a big pot?
Regardless of the poll, the sample rates are still tiny though to draw accurate conclusions. Especially on a subject that a tiny margin for error.
My MP is a Sinn Fein member, I doubt he knows.
Regardless you stated you knew what leaving meant. So can you tell us or not?
That is one way of doing it, by just looking at the averages and the distribution of each poll. But you can apply more refined techniques nowadays and look at every data point.
I am not sure whether that is always mathematically sound. But statisticians often apply methods that might not be used by a mathematical purist.
They are not tiny. They are actually more than sufficient. Problems are rather unrepresentative samples and cheap methods used to generate the samples and obtain the answers. Most polls are of low quality.
It's probably worth giving these two pieces a read
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20246741
https://votamatic.org/the-forecasts-were-wrong-trump-won-what-happened/
They're 0.01% of the voters (based on the previous referendum turn out).
That is not tiny. The point of polls is not to ask every person.
They still work good enough. People are highly predictable. The reason for the wrong calls is not that they polled only ,01% of the population.
Remind yourself of how the last polls in the referendum faired. Have a look at the Scottish referendum (post result) and how the opinion polls were wide of the mark. I would take them with a huge pinch of salt, some like to hang their hat on their accuracy.