Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

Well of course data doesn't infer anything because it's just a bunch of bits in a spreadsheet.

A properly conducted poll on a representative sample does give valuable info on trends. Politicians and companies pay handsomely to those companies with a proven record of accuracy.

It's a science, social but science nevertheless. But of course "experts" and all that.

Guv, believe me when I say I understand the basic concept of interpreting data to reach a conclusion.

Just accept that claiming that a few polls (I counted four) of around 2,000 people each (that's what they are) done in specific geographic locales (one was only in the North of England, for example) are a terrible set of data points to try and make any serious inferences regarding the changing moods of some 45 million people across an entire nation over the last several months; and any "expert" (as you put it) would collapse laughing at anyone who tried. There's a reason the results contradict even each other, you know?

Looking at the "expert" thing you put in quote marks though (to hearken back to that dumb Gove comment about "not needing experts", link what I'm saying to it, and thus dismiss me), I'm really not entirely sure why you feel this compulsive need to keep trying to slip little put downs inside your posts to me. I tried to get you to explain one when you last tried to argue with me, and you refused to even acknowedge you'd done it, let alone apologise for it. I could roll with it if we'd been debating for several posts and were getting tetchy with each other (it happens, and I'm as guilty as anyone there), but just shooting attitude out of the blue? Makes you look like a bit of a spanker, mate.

Could you do me a favour and just talk to me in a polite and friendly fashion? I can deal with the whole 'needing to argue compulsively over every little thing' aspect, but I really can't be bothered to deal with people who lack the basic manners to engage with me in a forthright, polite, and above all, well-intentioned way. Seriously guv, we're in the OT on a toy soldiers forum. Play nicely or find something better to do with your hours.

If you agree to the same, then done deal. The only reason for that remark was this comment of yours:

Eh.....inferences are made by interpreters of data. Not by the data itself.

I agree with you that this thread can do without petty remarks like these.

Back to the question, I have a degree in Economics, of which statistics is a major part of, and there's a simple formula to calculate the needed sample size for a given stdev and confidence interval.



For 5%-95% for a population of 45 million the required sample size is approximately 385 people. A 2.000 people survey is more than adequate for a binary question such as Brexit if the sample is properly chosen.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm not re-writing history. When did I ever say it was going to be easy? :.

Until the sudden crashing weight of actual reality came into play, practically all your posts -- well the ones that weren't ref'ing to Chirchill or Brunel or whatever, was berating people for not believing and saying how well things were going.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2910/724548.page#9555119

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
UK unemployment falls again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40947087

Growth is holding steady, tourism is booming due to the weak pound, and our exports have never been better.

Brexit should have happened years ago!

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2940/724548.page#9555197

I'm countering the narrative the this country is going down the pan. The UK isn't perfect, but I've never argued that it was.

.. mere pages after complaining endlessly that the nation was in fact going to dogs because, I dunno, a hotel near you got robbed or whatever.

It's almost quite extraordinary.

I always get emotional when ordinary people fall victim to roving gangs of criminals.

I'm not backtracking on Brexit - I'm still fully committed to it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not backtracking on Brexit - I'm still fully committed to it.

We know. You're backtracking on how hard it'll be. You implied it was simple from the start and until very recently, and now you claim you always claimed it was hard.

You're not alone, most of team Brexit made statements about how simple it was until they started to realise what a gakshow they'd signed up for.

jouso wrote:

If you agree to the same, then done deal. The only reason for that remark was this comment of yours:

Eh.....inferences are made by interpreters of data. Not by the data itself.

I agree with you that this thread can do without petty remarks like these.

You read that as a petty remark? It wasn't intended as one. Heh. Just goes to show that text based communication is always dicey.

Glad to see we could claw it back though. I hate it when topics get dragged off by personal sniping. It's always a risk in topics like this, heck, I'm probably guilty of having done it myself on occasion, but I try and remember that we're all grown men on a toy soldiers forum.


Back on topic, the population of the United Kingdom is well above 45 million (we're heading to break the 70 million shortly), I threw out 45 million because that's roughly the number of people who voted in the referendum. And the phrase 'sample is properly chosen' illustrates precisely why the handful of existing polls done are relatively worthless in trying to answer with any degree of certainty such a broad brush question as 'Have people's minds changed on brexit'. You have to make sure the question was chosen correctly. You have to make sure that you're not polling a poorer or richer area, an area with a higher or lower degree of education, an area with a higher or lower proportion of people who already voted a certain way, that your method of polling does not exclude certain categories of people, and so on.

The evidence is really in the pudding.

The Independent polled 1,400 people. Got a 2% switch in favour of Remain.
Yougov have done several polls which superficially indicate anything up to a 10% opposition to turning against Brexit, but bluntly state more detail in the answers show about 52% back Brexit, but just want different types (which skews the stats)
The Independent polled 1,400 people again two months later. Got a switch of 4% to favour Remain.
Policy North did a poll of 2,000 people (in the North East), and found that Brexit had increased in popularity, with 57% now backing it.
The express and star did a poll of their readers and recorded a 10% shift in favour of Remain.
Survation meanwhile, when asking three times if people would prefer a hard or soft brexit, have seen more and more people stop wanting a soft brexit and moving to 'undecided' whilst the number wanting a hard one have remained practically unaltered.


I could go on, but I think the point is made. For the record, I think that it is likely that there has probably been a minor shift (maybe 2% or so) in favour of Remain, because that's inevitable when people are barraged by negative news. But for the most part, I think those who cared enough to vote are more or less sticking to their positions, and judging by the wild variation of existing polls, there's certainly no real evidence to say one way or the other.

It's also worth noting that a lot of these surveys probably took place in London, which voted Remain.


Personally, I think we would be in a much better place if we didn't have a snap election. But then how many people would be complaining about unelected PMs?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The very fact that it's so difficult to leave the EU, is proof, if any were needed, that it was the right thing to do.

The very fact it's so difficult to build a fission reactor in your back garden is proof, if any were needed, that it was the right thing to do.

Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. For an easy example which everyone can try at home, try to open a pull door by pushing it.

I'm glad someone pointed out the silliest statement of the week. As on the earlier thinking, that walking through a closed door, because it is difficult, is the right thing to do....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's not Hercules battling The Hydra.

It's a squeaky voice teenager picking a fight with a Gang of Bikers to prove how well 'ard he is.

This is a fools errand. Why can't you just admit that?

Ready ourselves for the 21st Century by regressing back to the 1950's?

DINLT votes Remain = Brexit

DINLT votes Leave = Brexit

DINLT doesn't vote = Brexit

Everybody on dakka votes Remain = Brexit.

etc etc etc

Let's be honest, it doesn't really matter what anybody on dakka thinks. Naturally of course, it's enjoyable to have conversations on a wide range of issues, but you're mistaking me for somebody who had 17 million vote on June 23rd, instead of the 1 vote.

That's not really correct at all, because it is places like these where grass root notions start and which can change things for the better. We may only have one vote but our voices and arguments can be heard by a lot more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:


Back to the question, I have a degree in Economics, of which statistics is a major part of, and there's a simple formula to calculate the needed sample size for a given stdev and confidence interval.



For 5%-95% for a population of 45 million the required sample size is approximately 385 people. A 2.000 people survey is more than adequate for a binary question such as Brexit if the sample is properly chosen.

The problem is that this works on the assumption that there is only 'white noise', as in any statistical variation is due purely statistical variation (a point largely lost on folks analysis that the referendum result is the actual reflection of the view of the population). However statistical surveys are rarely (if ever), just about random statistical noise and there is usually 'red noise' or instrumentation noise which can be due to how samples are taken, who chooses the sample, who are regular visitors to the survey location (a telephone landline poll is likely to catch more people out of work/old than an internet survey for example).

You can't simply use one poll as an indicator as we don't know the biases inherent in the selection of the sample. However we can use the trends in the surveys to indicate the direction of travel and least an approximate distribution of peoples views on certain elements (and how volatile). So strictly speaking you are both right and both wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


Back on topic, the population of the United Kingdom is well above 45 million (we're heading to break the 70 million shortly), I threw out 45 million because that's roughly the number of people who voted in the referendum.

Not quite, the total eligible electorate was 46m, 33m turned out to vote.

 Whirlwind wrote:


Not quite, the total eligible electorate was 46m, 33m turned out to vote.

Doesn't really matter. In a hypothetical 150 million voter UK the number for 95-5 is still 385.

The iffy part about this is making those 385 representative: geographically, socially, by age groups etc, which is why most national electoral polls usually run in the magic 1.000 number... Even in the US with a much larger electorate.

jouso wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


Not quite, the total eligible electorate was 46m, 33m turned out to vote.

Doesn't really matter. In a hypothetical 150 million voter UK the number for 95-5 is still 385.

The iffy part about this is making those 385 representative: geographically, socially, by age groups etc, which is why most national electoral polls usually run in the magic 1.000 number... Even in the US with a much larger electorate.

But then it isn't 95-5 because it isn't representative and you get a skewed result. Even a 1000 isn't really representative because it fails to take into account the probability that you have sampled (even from a non-skewed sample) something that doesn't represent the median value. For example you can run monte-carlo simulations to determine how likely given the sample size you have picked is a result of an in representative sample. It is actually higher than these types of equations really imply. They give you an answer in a perfectly randomly distributed world. They fall down because it is rarely (if ever) the case.

 Whirlwind wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


Not quite, the total eligible electorate was 46m, 33m turned out to vote.

Doesn't really matter. In a hypothetical 150 million voter UK the number for 95-5 is still 385.

The iffy part about this is making those 385 representative: geographically, socially, by age groups etc, which is why most national electoral polls usually run in the magic 1.000 number... Even in the US with a much larger electorate.

But then it isn't 95-5 because it isn't representative and you get a skewed result. Even a 1000 isn't really representative because it fails to take into account the probability that you have sampled (even from a non-skewed sample) something that doesn't represent the median value. For example you can run monte-carlo simulations to determine how likely given the sample size you have picked is a result of an in representative sample. It is actually higher than these types of equations really imply. They give you an answer in a perfectly randomly distributed world. They fall down because it is rarely (if ever) the case.

That's why sampling is the most difficult step of the whole thing.

Big data is radically changing the way these things are done right now under our noses and there are developments almost daily. But that's outside the scope of this thread.

Of course there's a secondary effect and that's that polls are by itself an electoral weapon, and parties have been known to release one poll while keeping a different one under wraps (with a different cooking formula) for electoral purposes.

A poll done with a valid statistical survey based on the most carefully selected sample doesn't give an accurate picture of the final result. It gives you a confidence interval and margin of error. For example, 95% confidence that the result will be within 2% of 50% (and therefore 5% chance that it will be more than 2% either way. That's why we have to have a real poll to get an actual result!

This is why the arguments that we should/should not have a second referendum because the polls show X are pointless on both sides.

We MUST have a second referendum because the first one was interpreted as binding and giving a clear decision on what people wanted. AND IT WASN"T. A lot of assumptions have been made based (ironically) on polling about immigration and so on.

There wasn't any clear picture of what "Leave" actually meant. It could mean joining the EEA or EFTA, or staying in the customs union, or a special deal like Switzerland, or NI staying in the customs union and an internal border, or no deal and reverting to WTO rules, or a Canada style deal, or the "special deal" that the Brexiteers are aiming for, which hasn't been defined at all.

This is complete bs. The government is in a shambles and has no idea what they are doing or what they want. They have no idea what the nation wants. The opposition isn't much better -- Labour have no idea what they want to support or oppose. The nation as a whole has no idea what it wants.

Once the deal is clear, and people know the real choices on offer, then they MUST have a chance to vote on them. At this stage it becomes necessary to assume that people might have changed their minds enough to want to stay in the EU, and there should be two options on the ballot paper.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


We MUST have a second referendum because the first one was interpreted as binding and giving a clear decision on what people wanted. AND IT WASN"T. A lot of assumptions have been made based (ironically) on polling about immigration and so on.

Strictly speaking there must be a third and fourth and so on until the population is so for or against the decision that it is no longer valid to continue. The UK government ceded it's desire to make this decision, but democracy is not about one or the second chance of voting. It is about giving the population a continued say. By calling a referendum the UK government decided that this issue was best decided by the populace which means we should have an election on the issue every 5 years (probably at the same time as the GE so the incoming government knows what they want).

Yes I believe that another vote will probably swing to the Remain, yes I think it is best for the country and the populace both now and in the future. However it's unlikely to by a huge margin and the arguments will remain, the divisions will continue. The only way to solve that is to ensure people can be confident that their voices continue to heard. Until the point when one side or the other is so dominant that it is a pointless exercise (so 70%+).

Regardless of which side you are on we should not be content with "we got what we want" now lets move on and ignore that the populace may change its views over time.

That's why you should cement down the goalposts before you actually start playing the game.


Problem is, no one suspected a Brexit victory.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


We MUST have a second referendum because the first one was interpreted as binding and giving a clear decision on what people wanted. AND IT WASN"T. A lot of assumptions have been made based (ironically) on polling about immigration and so on.

Strictly speaking there must be a third and fourth and so on until the population is so for or against the decision that it is no longer valid to continue. The UK government ceded it's desire to make this decision, but democracy is not about one or the second chance of voting. It is about giving the population a continued say. By calling a referendum the UK government decided that this issue was best decided by the populace which means we should have an election on the issue every 5 years (probably at the same time as the GE so the incoming government knows what they want).

Yes I believe that another vote will probably swing to the Remain, yes I think it is best for the country and the populace both now and in the future. However it's unlikely to by a huge margin and the arguments will remain, the divisions will continue. The only way to solve that is to ensure people can be confident that their voices continue to heard. Until the point when one side or the other is so dominant that it is a pointless exercise (so 70%+).

Regardless of which side you are on we should not be content with "we got what we want" now lets move on and ignore that the populace may change its views over time.

This is true, of course, however continued membership of the EU also allows the population to express their opinions about the EU by voting in EUP elections as well as domestic elections.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

First thing I've laughed at on this thread in a very long time.

Nice one

Meanwhile, temporarily moving on from the constant attention sink that is Brexit, apparently Jeremy Corbyn's allies are totally cool with the anti-semitic, sexist, 'I salute your courage Saddam' George Galloway rejoining the welcoming folds of the Labour Party. From the people, for the people!

 Ketara wrote:
Meanwhile, temporarily moving on from the constant attention sink that is Brexit, apparently Jeremy Corbyn's allies are totally cool with the anti-semitic, sexist, 'I salute your courage Saddam' George Galloway rejoining the welcoming folds of the Labour Party. From the people, for the people!

I'm still trying to discover why him, Livingston and Corbyn are excused over these things.

 Ketara wrote:
Meanwhile, temporarily moving on from the constant attention sink that is Brexit, apparently Jeremy Corbyn's allies are totally cool with the anti-semitic, sexist, 'I salute your courage Saddam' George Galloway rejoining the welcoming folds of the Labour Party. From the people, for the people!

A quick bit of google fu turned up a Huff post article http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/george-galloway-could-be-re-admitted-to-labour-senior-party-spokesman-confirms-if-local-members-and-nec-back-it_uk_5a27f477e4b0c21176272417 There's a lot of if and maybe in the piece and going by the selection rules as presented in the article David Cameron could also join the party and run for election. Still it has been a while since Labour did something really stupid so I guess there due one

If anybody's still looking for Brexit impact studies here are some, although commissioned by the EU: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/ukevents/brexit/brexitstudies.html

They cover: Agriculture & Fisheries, Budget, Citizens' Rights, Development, Economic & Monetary Affairs, Employment & Social Affairs, European Parliament, Industry, Research & Energy, Internal Market & Consumer Protection, Regional Policy, Science, Trade, United Kingdom - Ireland Relations, and the United Kingdom. Although be warned:

The European Parliament has commissioned dozens of impact assessments or studies on Brexit from experts, across a broad range of policy areas, which are publicly available online. This webpage will be regularly updated to include further relevant publications.

The opinions expressed in these documents are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.

GoatboyBeta wrote:

A quick bit of google fu turned up a Huff post article http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/george-galloway-could-be-re-admitted-to-labour-senior-party-spokesman-confirms-if-local-members-and-nec-back-it_uk_5a27f477e4b0c21176272417 There's a lot of if and maybe in the piece and going by the selection rules as presented in the article David Cameron could also join the party and run for election. Still it has been a while since Labour did something really stupid so I guess there due one

I wasn't referring to that one (interesting though it may be). I was talking about this chap:-

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-ally-andrew-murray-calls-for-return-of-george-galloway-to-labour-ntkdd3v7s
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/union-chief-calls-for-george-galloways-readmission-to-the-labour-party/

This is from a bloke who was helping Corbyn run his last election campaign and spent a lot of time with him at Stop the War. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he's a big fan of Soviet Russia and North Korea.

It should also be borne in mind this little interview from before(which is referred to in Goatboy's post above):-

The Labour leader appeared to leave the door open for Mr Galloway rejoining the party in an interview last December.

Asked by the Huffington Post whether it was on the cards, Mr Corbyn said: "There is a five year rule. If he applies in five years’ time, it goes to the National Executive. They decide, not me."

Pressed on whether he would personally be opposed to him re-joining, the party leader said: "Let them decide."

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/74874/george-galloway-demands-jeremy-corbyn-rescinds-his

I find it interesting that when asked whether he personally thought Galloway should be re-admitted aside from who had the power, he refused to give an opinion. Given Galloway's history, that's a bit like May refusing to answer when asked if she personally thought a reincarnated Oswald Mosley should be allowed to join the Tories. I don't think they'll actually allow Galloway to rejoin, but the anti-semitic and generally vile people *coughseamusmilnecough*which Corbyn seems happy to have lurking in his shadow do keep cropping up quite regularly. They have the effect of deterring me from going anywhere near the Labour party these days, that's for sure.

I think old Vince will likely get my vote next election.

 Ketara wrote:

Pressed on whether he would personally be opposed to him re-joining, the party leader said: "Let them decide."
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/74874/george-galloway-demands-jeremy-corbyn-rescinds-his

I find it interesting that when asked whether he personally thought Galloway should be re-admitted aside from who had the power, he refused to give an opinion. Given Galloway's history, that's a bit like May refusing to answer when asked if she personally thought a reincarnated Oswald Mosley should be allowed to join the Tories.

Oswald Mosley, really? I admit I dont keep up all that well with UK politics but I have a hard time imaging he would be on the same level as the guy that started a fascist party and literally rubbed shoulders with Mussolini and Hitler

Davis essentially admits that Brexit is economic suicide:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5151193/David-Davis-says-Brexit-impact-like-2008-crash.html

The Brexit Secretary said quitting the Brussels club will amount to a 'paradigm change' comparable with the biggest financial slump since the Depression of the 1930s.

Mr Davis told the committee: 'You don't need to do a formal impact assessment to understand that if there is a regulatory hurdle between your producers and a market, there will be an impact.

I feel slightly dirty just linking to the Daily Mail, but since this is a pro-brexit paper, it's really looking damning. This could be enough to tip the voter share.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Meanwhile, temporarily moving on from the constant attention sink that is Brexit, apparently Jeremy Corbyn's allies are totally cool with the anti-semitic, sexist, 'I salute your courage Saddam' George Galloway rejoining the welcoming folds of the Labour Party. From the people, for the people!

I'm still trying to discover why him, Livingston and Corbyn are excused over these things.

Is it because opposing Israeli foreign policy and looking for a Two State solution is in fact, not Anti-Semitism?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Is it because opposing Israeli foreign policy and looking for a Two State solution is in fact, not Anti-Semitism?

That's what I was thinking; disagreeing with Israels stance on something isn't anti-semetic on it's own (unless the disagreement is because they are Jews); no more than disagreeing with a woman on something is sexist, or someone of a different colour is racist. It's just Israel seems to jump on the anti-semitism card whenever people disagree with them. I can almost understand the persecution complex, but it doesn't make it any more valid.

The problem is that it can look like anti-semitism because Israel is the Jewish nation as per Balfour Declaration.

It doesn't help that a lot of the international animosity towards Israel comes from Arab nations and can be tinged with what looks like genuine anti-semitism.

It just honks me off.

If someone is critical of Israel as a government, that's nothing to do with the majority religion of the country.

Yet, there's elements out there quick to label it anti-Semitic to shutdown as much criticism as possible.

And that only plays into the hands of actual anti-semites, who are already convinced there's some kind of bizarre Jewish conspiracy to control the world.

I'm always amazed that the Tories are attacking Labour on anti-Semitism when you consider the controversial links the Tories had with a certain Apartheid regime in a well known African country in the 1980s...

And when they attack Corbyn over the IRA, I think, is this the same Tories + DUP + certain Loyalist groups in 1980s Northern Ireland, we're talking about here, or a completely different Tory party?

All I'm saying is people glass houses stones and all that.

I am afraid that that danger is inherent in the nature of the situation, in that Israel was created specifically as the Jewish homeland.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It just honks me off.

If someone is critical of Israel as a government, that's nothing to do with the majority religion of the country.

Yet, there's elements out there quick to label it anti-Semitic to shutdown as much criticism as possible.

And that only plays into the hands of actual anti-semites, who are already convinced there's some kind of bizarre Jewish conspiracy to control the world.

I criticise Israeli foreign policy all the time, and the Palestinians as well for that matter, and it's never bothered me a bit to be labelled anti-Semitic, because I know my criticisms are genuine foreign policy criticism.

In all, my foreign policy doctrine can be summed up in one sentence: Keep the hell away from the Middle East.