Why don't they just brush up those plans on how they fleeced all the bankers fleeing the UK not joining the Euro?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Printable View
Why don't they just brush up those plans on how they fleeced all the bankers fleeing the UK not joining the Euro?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
My estimate is that a very large proportion of voters are former protest voters from the other protest parties. Though in 2015 the protest votes went down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The reason for that is that if you analyse from seat to seat in 2015 the UKIP vote went up by less than what the other protest votes went down in a similar ratio. So either they're getting some of the falling protest votes ... or they're getting major party voters which are getting more than replaced by former protest voters given that major party voters were going up not down.
Finally there is a lot of evidence that voters give false-recall of how they previously voted. EG after almost every election a survey shows that more voted for the winner than actually did while the Lib Dems notoriously get far less people recalling they voted for them (their voters tend to recall voting for either of the major parties).
Quote:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-weighting
The problem with this approach is down to “false recall” – people are not actually very good at remembering how they voted at the last election. This is undisputed and supported by extremely strong evidence – multiple academic panel studies have demonstrated that if you ask a group of people how they voted, note down the results and then go back to the same people a period of time later and ask them again their answers will have changed. There are various different explanations for this phenomenon, perhaps people say how they wish they had voted, rather than how they actually did, perhaps they are embarrassed to admit voting for a now unpopular party. There is good evidence to suggest that some people align their “past vote” to match how they would vote now. My two preferred explanations are that people who did not vote claim they did (and tend to claim they voted Labour) and that Labour supporters who voted tactically for the Liberal Democrats in their own particular constituency claim they voted for the party that they actually supported, rather than the party they voted for.
So you've demonstrated that the analysis was broken, well done.Quote:
Other research has shown that a significant number of people tend to exaggerate their likelihood of voting as well to report having voted when they probably could not have done so. The sample underlying that particular YouGov analysis underestimated UKIP's actual share of the popular vote by a couple of percent.
Much sense, your posting does not make. [/yoda]Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
How does this saying go again? Oh, yes: "Cut off your nose to spite your face." This moronic: "But we will have oh-so-much-more say about where we are going!" is an illusion.
I also read an article about one of those economic think tanks who are optimistic. Their reasoning: "Well, we can get rid of regulations!"
Their examples for the regulations they want to get rid of:
- Environmental protection
- Worker rights
- Guidelines mandating transparency in finance
And to think that it's the poor and unwashed masses which deem that they'll profit from this. Idiots :)
Statements to the press condemning, e.g. the racist ad that Unheard Of posted would be sufficient. If they've made them and I've missed them, then fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You'll have to clarify this because it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the estimates.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So you've demonstrated that a plurality of UKIP voters apparently wish they'd voted for Con in the previous election, how curious. I wonder what they'd vote for if the UKIP weren't around anymore :o I wonder.Quote:
Finally there is a lot of evidence that voters give false-recall of how they previously voted. EG after almost every election a survey shows that more voted for the winner than actually did while the Lib Dems notoriously get far less people recalling they voted for them (their voters tend to recall voting for either of the major parties).
So you've demonstrated that the analysis was broken, well done.
False recall does not have the relevance you think it does to this discussion. Non-voters who report voting constitute at most 10%. Post-election survey discrepancies can be explained by non-representative samples or changes to methodology. False recall tends to be associated with overestimation of Lab support and slight overestimation of LD support. One thing false recall does not seem to be associated with is overestimation of Con support.
If you're saying that there are issues with the data, sure, I won't deny that. But even if I low-ball these numbers my original points stand. You've made claims of your own that remain entirely unjustified by available data.
You are obviously not aware that not being in the common market of the EU wipes away a big chunk of the reason why bankers choose to be in London. Rules to exclude British banks that are impossible while you are inside the EU will be adopted once you get out. Being in the UK will no longer give third country banks access to the EU market.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No a number of Lib Dem voters recall voting for a major party at the previous election. So it's quite possible that a current UKIP voter is a former Lib Dem voter who doesn't recall voting for the Lib Dems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It is supported by the data.Quote:
If you're saying that there are issues with the data, sure, I won't deny that. But even if I low-ball these numbers my original points stand. You've made claims of your own that remain entirely unjustified by available data.
4.5 million fewer Lib Dem votes cast
0.5 million fewer BNP votes cast
3 million extra UKIP votes cast
Where did the Lib Dem votes go? Where did the UKIP votes come from?
Do you expect that for all sides? Is Cameron expected to condemn everything that Corbyn says as pro-Remain that he disagrees with? Because he's not been doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
When we quit ERM it was supposed to see the bankers go to Frankfurt, destroy the British economy, instead the British economy entered a big boom that saw it outperform the nascent Eurozone for nearly two decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
When we decided against joining the Euro it was supposed to see the bankers move to Frankfurt and our economy become a backwater compared to the Eurozone, again the opposite.
Now if we quit the EU we're supposed to crash and see Frankfurt take the bankers. Is that based on the logic of "third time's the charm"?
If those regulations are so good the poor unwashed masses can elect to have them locally.Quote:
I also read an article about one of those economic think tanks who are optimistic. Their reasoning: "Well, we can get rid of regulations!"
Their examples for the regulations they want to get rid of:
- Environmental protection
- Worker rights
- Guidelines mandating transparency in finance
And to think that it's the poor and unwashed masses which deem that they'll profit from this. Idiots :)
Hence Frankfurt am Main which already is an important financial center. It will only become more powerful after a Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Nope. Like Hazir said: The reason why London is strong is that it provides comfortable access to the European Market. After a Brexit, this access will be null and void. One of the biggest reasons for London just went up in flames. All that other stuff you listed is comparatively minor and unimportant.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
All those banks you currently have which are providing financial services for customers in other EU countries? They will be required to create independent subsidiary companies in the EU to keep serving their customers. Much easier to simply move headquarters somewhere else.
Then again, it might also be Dublin or Paris.
But London? London will fall.
Because third time is the charm right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
As I said: Easy access to the EU market is a rather big deal for something which is basically a trade.
Trading never profitted from difficulties at the border.
If you can't see that then I can't really help you. Why exactly do you think your bankers are nearly unanimous in their opinion that a Brexit would be a Bad Thing(tm)?
Those guys usually don't oppose something which will make them money.
Which reminds me, speaking of Dublin: The situation in Northern Ireland will definitely profit from this. /s
You're right, it is "quite possible", the question is however whether that accounts for so many UKIP voters that past LD-voters make up a much larger share of current UKIP-voters than do past tories. The answer is that it does not and analyses of poll data are more consistent with the theory that past tories made up a larger portion of 2015 UKIP voters than did former supporters of any other party.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
LD lost votes to all major and non-tiny parties but to Lab more than to any other party.Quote:
It is supported by the data.
4.5 million fewer Lib Dem votes cast
0.5 million fewer BNP votes cast
3 million extra UKIP votes cast
Where did the Lib Dem votes go? Where did the UKIP votes come from?
The numbers you cite do not show or even suggest where the votes went, whether to other parties, to the grave or to someone's navel. If you want to make claims about voter flows then please provide information from some source that looks at voter flows. If all you can offer are rhetorical questions, I have already offered you my answers: the LD votes went primarily to Lab but also to the other parties while the largest portion of the UKIP votes came from former Con supporters. It is of course possible that many of the UKIP voters are first-time voters but nothing I've seen so far that that's likely to make much of a difference.
Btw you really should edit your OP, it's a shame to have unnecessary factual errors in an otherwise well-written post.
The main reason why I will be voting to remain on thursday is London's financial presence in the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Except it doesn't add up and if it was true then Ed Miliband would now be Prime Minister. See below.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Let us pretend for a second you're right and do some maths.Quote:
LD lost votes to all major and non-tiny parties but to Lab more than to any other party.
The numbers you cite do not show or even suggest where the votes went, whether to other parties, to the grave or to someone's navel. If you want to make claims about voter flows then please provide information from some source that looks at voter flows. If all you can offer are rhetorical questions, I have already offered you my answers: the LD votes went primarily to Lab but also to the other parties while the largest portion of the UKIP votes came from former Con supporters. It is of course possible that many of the UKIP voters are first-time voters but nothing I've seen so far that that's likely to make much of a difference.
2010->2015 figures (Change).
Tory 10,703,654 -> 11,334,576 (+630,922)
Lab 8,606,517 -> 9,347,304 (+740,787)
LD 6,836,248 -> 2,415,862 (-4,420,386)
UKIP 919,471 -> 3,881,129 (+2,921,658)
BNP 564,321 -> 1,667 (-562,654)
To be generous to your logic lets move all 100% of lost BNP votes to the Kippers. That makes the net Kipper gain: 2,359,004
If we move half the net Kipper gain from the Tories then that is -1,179,502 for them
If we move half the Lib Dems to Labour then that is +2,210,193 for them.
Plug these changes you've picked into the starting figures and we have explained figures of:
Starting +/- Explained change = Net Vote - Actual Vote = Error
Con 10,703,654 - 1,179,502 = 9,524,152 -11,354,576 = -1,830,424
Lab 8,606,517 + 2,210,193 = 10,816,710 - 9,347,304 = +1,469,406
LD 6,836,248 - 2,210,193 = 4,626,055 - 2,415,862 = 2,210,193
UKIP 919,471 + (562,654+1,179,502) = 2,661,627 - 3,881,129 = -1,219,502
As you can see clearly by your logic Lab should have been about 1.3 million votes ahead of the Tories. But instead it was the other way around, the Tories beat Labour by 2 million votes.
You have underestimated the Tories by nearly 2 million votes and over estimated Labour by nearly 1.5 million votes. Your logic fails the second it meets reality. Your discrepancy on the Labour vote is double the original variance before your proposed changes and your discrepancy on the Tory vote is three times the original variance. How can you make the numbers add up from there?
The Tory vote went up despite you giving millions of Tory votes to UKIP, so where did these extra Tory voters (to more than make up for the Kipper flow) come from?
The Labour vote went up an order of magnitude less than the LD vote went down. Where did the Labour votes end up and why?
Editing an old post is silly, that's why we have later posts. As far as South Korea is concerned Wiki says you're right but the EU's own website which I linked to in the OP doesn't list South Korea for some reason: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/cou...ther-countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The Canadian agreement is still not yet in force. Had it been a bilateral agreement I think it would have been.
Oh for sod's sake. That's not pretending I'm right and then using my "logic" to "do some maths", nor can it be used in any meaningful way to show what you want to show because it isn't "reality". You're applying inappropriate reasoning to inappropriate data. Let me explain some of the reasons why.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
- your calculations are based only on cast votes when the discussion is about support in opinion which is likely to be higher for some than what actual votes would suggest (due to differential turnout and tactical voting for example)
- Your calculations assume that everyone who voted in 2010 also voted in 2015 and that only those who voted in 2010 voted in 2015. In other words it disregards changes in the voter base as well as irregular/infrequent voters.
- in reality, about a million more votes were cast in 2015
- between 2010 and 2015 roughly 2.8 million people died, the vast majority of them older adults, which means many eligible voters were lost and were replaced by around 3.3 million completely new eligible voters.
- you disregard all other voter migration. In reality, in addition to major cases of migration that completely make or break parties on their own, there are smaller flows between parties. In the case of LD, just over a third went to Lab but a significant number went to Con (under 15%) and a slightly smaller number went to UKIP, a similar number to the Greens and a smaller portion still to SNP.
- you ignore Labour's huge loss in Scotland
- You've overestimated both the UKIP gain from Con as well as the Lab gain from LD.
- I have never said that a majority of UKIP voters were Con, nor have I said that a majority of LD voters went to Lab. I said the "largest portion" or equivalent and where I've actually used a term I've tried to make sure to say "plurality" to signify a portion that is larger than the others without being a majority. That is why your assumptions that UKIP got half its support from Con or that LD lost half its support to Lab cannot be said to be based on anything I said.
Mate, I'm very sorry because it looks like you spent a lot of time on that but your data is, shockingly enough, worse and less relevant even than YouGov's data, and you're using it in a bizarre way.
It's a material change to the information underlying your reasoning so acknowledge when and where you wish but do take it into account. A simple google search for EU south korea free trade would have shown you info about the agreement. In the link you provided all you have to do is press Ctrl+F and type "korea" rather than "south".Quote:
Editing an old post is silly, that's why we have later posts. As far as South Korea is concerned Wiki says you're right but the EU's own website which I linked to in the OP doesn't list South Korea for some reason: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/cou...ther-countries
Geez. I wish Sweden were as good at moving the goalposts as that, maybe then we'd have done better in the Euro cup this year.Quote:
The Canadian agreement is still not yet in force. Had it been a bilateral agreement I think it would have been.
Disregarding the possible impact of a Brexit on the conclusion of the deal, what do you believe the likelihood is of CETA not being ratified at this stage?
Disregarding the possible impact of a Brexit, what do you believe is the likelihood of the Japan negotiations being indefinitely stalled at this stage?
In your OP, you seemed to imply that trade was initially an important agreement in favour of EU membership and that the complete failure to conclude trade agreements with major economies outside the EU is now an important argument against continued EU membership. In reality, the EU trades extensively with economies outside the EU, has one agreement in force with one of the economies you listed (SK), one that's pending ratification (Canada), one that's in the final stages of negotiation (Japan) and one that will be concluded in one form or another unless Trump wins (TTIP). Additionally, negotiations for the Trade in Services Agreement--between a large group of WTO members--are progressing well and Britain will not automatically be party to that deal when it's concluded.
Rand, that's a massive ecological fallacy. You can't make individual-level claims on the basis of aggregate data. Minx provided individual-level data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-hurt-america/
To recap: the markets are reacting negatively to the prospect of a Brexit, US corporations are against it, British corporations are against it, British universities are against it, British scientists are against it, the IMF is against it, London financial firms are against it. Meanwhile, Putin is for it. Trump is for it. And the far right is for it. Rand is certainly on the right side of history here.
Hey, but the presumed smartest Brexiteer is against listening to what the experts have got to say. After all, actually knowing something about a subject makes you eminently suspect. Now, that doesn't remind me of Hitler, but there was this other guy... hmmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
How did that quote from one of the articles linked here go? Oh, yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
"After voting for the Brexit, England will spend five years getting out of the EU. And after that, five years trying to get back in."
Wouldn't be surprised.
I would definately demand a referendum if they re-applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
No, just the racist stuff. You know, like everyone expected Corbyn to do once members of the Labour party were caught making anti-semitic remarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This isn't difficult, and Gove has now publicly spoken out against the ad.
Tough shit if the Washington Post thinks its bad for America, though I doubt it. America would never agree to the conditions the UK puts up with for EU membership. You specifically laughed at the idea of free movement with Mexico didn't you? While the Eurozone has enough votes under QMV to change our laws unilaterally, which other nations do you give the right to change American laws without American consent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
As for your claims, the markets are not reacting negatively. Since the polls shifted to showing Leave as seriously possible both sterling and the FTSE 100 are both performing stronger than they were earlier this year let alone in recent years. The long-serving former Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King has said the threats of Brexit are "exaggerated" while the eurozone is doomed.
US corporations - less fucks I could not give.
British corporations - have mixed opinions. Small enterprises in particular have much more nuanced opinions. Two credible Leave experts are the former head of the CBI Lord Digby Jones who has written an impressive piece on why he is voting Leave and Sir James Dyson.
Universities and scientists - while I respect Hawking's views on physics this is not a physics question and he is not as much of an expert on this topic as true experts like Dyson and King and Jones.
IMF - Got a lot wrong recently. A few years ago they published a report condemning the governments austerity as threatening growth before the UK proceeded to grow faster than any other major developed economy. Not the end of the world to disagree with them.
London Financial Firms - The UK is more than London but not all London firms are against it
Idiots for it - I can name many idiots against it.
If experts are the bees knees then why do you disregard experts like Mervyn King, Digby Jones, James Dyson and Peter Hargreaves?
Everyone expected Corbyn to condemn or expel HIS OWN party members yes. Farage is not in Gove's Party. He is not in Gove's campaign group. How can Gove expel Farage from Vote Leave when Farage isn't a member of Vote Leave?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
If a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) makes an antisemetic remark then nobody views him as being Corbyn's responsibility despite being on the same side of a political divide.
people talking about bank flight from UK in the event of Brexit obviously do not know what they are talking about, have never worked in the industry. If anything brexit will make British financial sector more attractive.
Yes, for Russians with money they don't dare store in their own country, assuming that the new government doesn't give a shit where money comes from. And FYI it's not 'people' it's CEO's of big financial institutions saying that. Is this a jibe at them not working for their money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian
While CEOs of other financial institutions like Hargreaves say the opposite. Funny that.
I believe you misunderstand the thrust of the argument. While it appears to be a shallow appeal to authority it can equally well be viewed as an indicator of what these people believe will be in their best interests and in the best interests of their various fields. While Brexit is not a "physics question", Brexit's possible impact on the work being done by physicists in Britain is a matter into which British physicists and British universities may have some relevant insight. Dyson is not an objective altruistic expert, he's a self-interested private party who recently had his ass handed to him at least twice due to his opposition to EU energy labelling regulations that he feels unfairly disadvantaged his hoovers. You should look at the consensus in each relevant field and determine whether or not that consensus is persuasive from your perspective and from society's perspective as a whole. For example, there are those who accurately view the EU as being inimical to their interests eg. because of competition from low-wage workers from other countries. You'll have to decide whether or not your--and society's--interests outweigh the interests of those groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade