Enlighten us, what did it mean then ?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Enlighten us, what did it mean then ?
Tbf farage did say that he’d keep going until he got the result he wanted. It’s the biggest political decision of many people’s lives so it’s not unexpected that people will change their minds especially as they find out the full implications and lies away from the catchy sound bites
I think farrage actually said if its 52%-48% then its not over by a long way ... so yeah I don't think they would have stopped
Look I hate it as much as you and I too have skin in the game as far as my Company and it's staff are concerned. I wrote to my local MP detailing those concerns. However this has gone way too far. The precedents now being set (courts getting involved etc.) will have a lasting effect for your generation and beyond. I don't have a low opinion of Remain voters (I was one of them ffs). However, if you deploy the blunt instrument which is direct democracy then you have to implement the result if you ever envisage using that method to decide things again. In this case the softer the better but it has to be implemented in my view.
Well, again, that is completely not true.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2011/11/21/understanding-margin-error
The "WhatTheUKThinks" poll of polls seems to have been made up of
a YouGov Poll - 3,766 people
an IpsosMori poll - 1,592 people
A populous poll - 4,700 people
etc
A 10k person poll would give us a margin of error of around 1%
What happened here is NON RANDOM ERROR. This is systemic error within the polls. This is why reports were published after the failure to predict the 2015 result even with exit polls, and better models were created.
But isn’t it something like 10+ years before the UK could reapply again (and maybe not get accepted after the way they’ve behaved). Also you’d have to pay out a shit load more money to get in
for feck sake man, all you can find me is an article from a pro-leave website?They would have been seriously set back and there would not have been shed loads of MP's trawling parliamentary procedure to overturn it or a million marching in London. The result would have been largely accepted and Cameron would have succeeded in putting both the Scottish and EU questions to bed for a generation. Another referendum would have been a million miles away.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's why it's better to look at those polls which were (and are) conducted anonymously.
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.