Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Red_toad said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
NinjaFletch said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

F-Red said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
"We really shouldn't be all that surprised that our methods 'worked' on election day," says Linzer.

"All this proves is that public opinion research is still a reliable and accurate way to learn about people's voting preferences… as we've known all along. [There's] no need to go on gut instincts or intuition or whatever else the pundits are doing, when we have actual real information," says Linzer.

But those who built their living on gut instinct and intuition were surprised. For weeks, journalists and pollsters were convinced that the work of Linzer, Silver and Wang was politically biased or that their maths was wrong.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20246741

State-level presidential polls—especially in the swing states—were badly and systematically wrong, by amounts not seen in decades. The polling averages indicated that Clinton would win Florida and North Carolina by 2 percentage points, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 5 percentage points, and Michigan by 7 percentage points. Instead, Trump won all five, for a total haul of 90 electoral votes. The state polls were so inaccurate that Trump almost won New Hampshire, where he’d been trailing by 5, and Minnesota, where he’d trailed by 9. Across all states, on average, Trump’s margin of victory was 5 percentage points greater than our polling aggregates expected it to be.

Given this data, no reasonable poll-based presidential forecasting model could have predicted a Trump victory. There was no interpretation of the available public polling data that supported that conclusion. This was not a case of confirmation bias or analysts reading into the data conclusions that they wanted to see. The evidence supporting a Trump victory did not exist.
Click to expand...
https://votamatic.org/the-forecasts-were-wrong-trump-won-what-happened/
 
F-Red said:
They're 0.01% of the voters (based on the previous referendum turn out).
Click to expand...
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.
 
UweBein said:
They still work good enough. People are highly predictable.
Click to expand...

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.
 
F-Red said:
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.
Click to expand...
That might not have anything to do with the sample size though.
The reasons for the discrepancy are wrong models or unrepresentative (non-random) samples - in my opinion.
 
Red_toad said:
Nobody knew what it meant? I did and I don’t even live in the uk anymore. Of course some people knew. It’s all in deadlock as the government never thought people would vote yes. Had Cameron and co wanted it, it would have happened a long time ago.
Click to expand...

No you didn't no matter what you claim now. Ireland was rarely mentioned. A easy to negotiate deal was assumed. Economic benefit not economic disaster was widely touted. Concerns were dismissed as "project fear". I really doubt anyone who voted leave though "currency crash, huge job losses, billions or GDP down the drain? Excellent, I'll have me some of that".

If the referendum was a date it would have been sexual assault as consent was obtained by deception.
 
Honest John said:
Right now there are massive efforts to either overturn this result or have a 2nd referendum.

Every possible weapon in the parliamentary book is being deployed including recourse to the supreme court.

There were a million people marching in London on Saturday.

Would we be seeing anything like this if it had been 52-48 the other way? I don't thinks so.

Even if there was dissent over the result it would have been put soundly to bed with remainers crying losers consent from every quarter?

How long, in that situation, would Leavers have had to wait to have got another bite of the cherry?
Click to expand...

Hopefully never. They shouldn't have had the first bite.
 
F-Red said:
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.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense. Sample sizes look fine. I've worked with YouGov, Neilsen, TNS, IPSOS and others over the years, and they have used similar samples sizes (or even less) on very complex UK business projections.

You're the guy who arrogantly ignored Kellner just because he didn't fit your agenda.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
All UK governments have used the EU as their scapegoat when it suits them to distract from their own failures.
The EU is not perfect and has its faults but still have not seen what the main objections that have suddenly been imposed on the UK are.

The big topics are Freedom of movement, this has been there since day 1. ECJ the same. Laws are mainly trade laws or minimum standards and yet the UK are saying they're going to maintain EU laws and standards so this makes no sense either. Sovereignty, every country is sovereign and the contributions argument is so pedantic it is untrue plus the Uk have the best deal in the EU.
What has the EU deprived the UK of? Being able to do these imaginary famous trade deals.

I really cannot see how the UK will benefit in the slightest by leaving the EU.
Click to expand...

The analogy of amputating both legs because you have a veruca on your big toe is very apt.
 
Volumiza said:
Taking off a car wheel would be difficult if you were taking nuts off while someone else was putting them back on or hiding the wheel brace. Things are as easy as you make them sammsky1. I'm not saying it would have been a doddle unpicking 30+ years of integration but if everyone was on board (or at least pretended to be) it wouldn't have been anywhere near this hard.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone pretend to be onboard with such a destructive decision?
 
Tomorrow seems to be a another 'momentous' day:
The prime minister will ask MPs to back him in two crucial votes on Tuesday – on the withdrawal agreement bill, enshrining the deal he struck in Brussels last week, and on his plan to ram it through the House of Commons by the end of Thursday.

With the backing of some Labour rebels and the Tories who backed Oliver Letwin’s amendment at the weekend, Johnson is expected to win the vote on his bill known as the second reading, signalling MPs’ approval for it to proceed in principle.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nson-in-final-push-to-ram-through-brexit-deal
Click to expand...

How do our resident Brexit pundits think this will play out tomorrow and rest of the week?
 
Massive Spanner said:
Finneh I would love to know what you think Britain is going to do differently to combat these issues when they're outside the EU and going it alone. You think they'll prioritise these African countries over the richer nations? You think they'll increase immigration from these countries as opposed to countries where far more skilled workers would come from?

This is a country who largely voted to leave because of xenophobic reasons, and you think that by leaving, you are going to do better than the EU did at helping out the poorer nations? What sort of logic is that?

Don't get me wrong, it's an incredible twist, calling the EU racist and using that as your excuse for leaving. Bravo.
Click to expand...

Boris and the ERG are sure to want to look after black people. Especially the rich ones who they went to Oxbridge with.

The idea that Brexit isn't largely driven by xenohobia and will actually benefit poorer black nations requires olympic class mental gymnastics.
 
sammsky1 said:
Tomorrow seems to be a another 'momentous' day:


How do our resident Brexit pundits think this will play out tomorrow and rest of the week?
Click to expand...
To be fair, it's a win-win for Boris.

He wins the vote, his bill goes through to the next stage and will likely pass. He knows the numbers aren't there for a second referendum, but a customs union is a real possibility. I imagine he'll do all he can to avoid that. I'm betting though it'll get through un-amended then take a battering in the HoL, leading to some crazy ping-pong.

He loses the vote, he gets his general election and very likely goes on to win it, leading him to get his Withdrawal Agreement through easily.

Thats my opinion anyway
 
sammsky1 said:
Utter nonsense. Sample sizes look fine. I've worked with YouGov, Neilsen, TNS, IPSOS and others over the years, and they have used similar samples sizes (or even less) on very complex UK business projections.
Click to expand...

4,000 is very low, a little more than an away end allocation at Old Trafford.

sammsky1 said:
You're the guy who arrogantly ignored Kellner just because he didn't fit your agenda.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no clue what my supposed agenda is.
 
Wibble said:
If the referendum was a date it would have been sexual assault as consent was obtained by deception.
Click to expand...

Buggery by deception. I suspect that a majority of the population still don’t or want to believe they’re being massively fecked up the shitter!
 
sammsky1 said:
Tomorrow seems to be a another 'momentous' day:


How do our resident Brexit pundits think this will play out tomorrow and rest of the week?
Click to expand...
I think it’s all coming to a head. I think we’re all fecked now Sam. The opposition to this madness are just too shite, divided and uninspiring....and the wrong’ us are going to win in the end
 
Rams said:
Buggery by deception. I suspect that a majority of the population still don’t or want to believe they’re being massively fecked up the shitter!
Click to expand...

They also completely misunderstood when they were advised to start pushing back.
 
F-Red said:
4,000 is very low, a little more than an away end allocation at Old Trafford.
Click to expand...

What an absurd and totally irrelevant whataboutsim!! :lol::lol::lol:

You seem to project an awful lot about quant data market research, but make ridiculous statements and with zero evidence.

So do tell me your opinion on market research sample sizes required to get an opinion within the 99% confidence level?

Cant wait ....
 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
No you didn't no matter what you claim now. Ireland was rarely mentioned. A easy to negotiate deal was assumed. Economic benefit not economic disaster was widely touted. Concerns were dismissed as "project fear". I really doubt anyone who voted leave though "currency crash, huge job losses, billions or GDP down the drain? Excellent, I'll have me some of that".

If the referendum was a date it would have been sexual assault as consent was obtained by deception.
Click to expand...

Hmm ok then!
 
T00lsh3d said:
I think it’s all coming to a head. I think we’re all fecked now Sam. The opposition to this madness are just too shite, divided and uninspiring....and the wrong’ us are going to win in the end
Click to expand...
Yes, it does seem like all the different lanes are now converging into one superhighway .... time for everyone to stop playing games and truly (wo)man up

EG: Labour and LibDem have to find a way to make a coalition, Labour MPs have to stop sleeping with the enemy ...

BJ is there for the taking, but the opposition is even more unruly than the Tories. Tragic!
 
sammsky1 said:
What an absurd and totally irrelevant whataboutsim!! :lol::lol::lol:

You seem to project an awful lot about quant data market research, but making ridiculous statements and with zero evidence.

So do tell me your opinion on market research sample sizes required to get an opinion within the 99% confidence level?

Cant wait ....
Click to expand...

This is getting interesting...
 
sammsky1 said:
What an absurd and totally irrelevant whataboutsim!! :lol::lol::lol:

You seem to project an awful lot about quant data market research, but making ridiculous statements and with zero evidence.

So do tell me your opinion on market research sample sizes required to get an opinion within the 99% confidence level?

Cant wait ....
Click to expand...

It puts your example of a 'fine' sample rate into context, its small. An error rate of +/-3% would require much more than a sample rate of 4,000. By pure maths alone you would be looking at around 5% of the population or in this case the turn out from the referendum to get a something around a 99% confidence level. My point back in all these posts is around trusting the opinion polls, and the fact the sample rates are so low is therefore meaning that you can take a pinch of salt with every single one. However many people are hanging their hats on these opinion polls being correct, which given the error rate of being +/-10% based on such a low sample rate, means that the gap from a 52-48 vote is so big that the opinion poll isn't worth the paper it's written on. That's just basic maths.

For someone who proclaims to be in big business (ergo "very complex business projections"), you do struggle to remain calm when you get challenged.
 
F-Red said:
It puts your example of a 'fine' sample rate into context, its small. An error rate of +/-3% would require much more than a sample rate of 4,000. By pure maths alone you would be looking at around 5% of the population or in this case the turn out from the referendum to get a something around a 99% confidence level. My point back in all these posts is around trusting the opinion polls, and the fact the sample rates are so low is therefore meaning that you can take a pinch of salt with every single one. However many people are hanging their hats on these opinion polls being correct, which given the error rate of being +/-10% based on such a low sample rate, means that the gap from a 52-48 vote is so big that the opinion poll isn't worth the paper it's written on. That's just basic maths.

For someone who proclaims to be in big business (ergo "very complex business projections"), you do struggle to remain calm when you get challenged.
Click to expand...


The bolded statements above are simply untrue. Anyone can do some basic internet research to disprove. You're just like the typical Leave voter: Make nonsense statements and then ignore blatant evidence which doesn't suit your agenda.

Anyways, its a total waste of my time to take your opinions on this as you're either a WUM or totally deluded in your mastery on this subject.

BTW: I don't have to proclaim anything that is my reality. Also the character attack is just a weak attempt by you to deflect.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
Got to agree with that. Really worrying times if this deal goes through.

I can only say i really hope the leavers are hit hardest.
Click to expand...

The leave voters will be but it will be too late by then and they will blame everyone else as usual. The leave bigwigs would have made their money by then on the tax avoidance and shortening of the pound.
 
finneh said:
I voted to leave because I think the external trade barriers and regulatory restrictions that prevent mostly poor black people from trading with us on the same terms as mostly wealthy white people is both incredibly racist but is also deadly to many in those countries who are being prevented from earning an honest living.

I don't like the idea of a cartel designed to enrich wealthy white people at the expense of poor black people.
Click to expand...

WTF?!?!?!

Do you honestly believe a post Brexit Britain is going to care more about the lives of poor Black people than a Britain in the EU, or the EU itself for that matter?! That when Britain’s own champion of racial relations, Boris Johnson himself, wins the next election by a land slide he’s going to prioritize fair trade?!?! That members of Boris’ own government like Rees-Mogg are going to push for a fair distribution of wealth to 3rd World countries?????
The only ‘wogs’ Boris & chums will be focusing on will be from places like Saudi Arabia & the UAE.
Jesus Christ... Mother of God... You couldn’t make this up (..well, they did actually!)
 
TheGame said:
How can anyone vote for this bill without no economic impact assessment? :wenger:

Click to expand...

Oh ffs just gerronwivvit. Project Fear. I don't need to look both ways before I cross the street and fall off that cliff edge over there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.