Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
Except it doesn't add up and if it was true then Ed Miliband would now be Prime Minister. See below.

Let us pretend for a second you're right and do some maths.

[...] [nonsensical calculations] [...]

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?
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.

- 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.

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
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".

The Canadian agreement is still not yet in force. Had it been a bilateral agreement I think it would have been.
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.

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.