Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Enterprise_1701C

That is not a margin of error, it is simply the way it is done.

People make the choice to vote or not to vote, a lot of people voted Khorbyn in the last election because they wanted to warn the tories, they felt that there was absolutely no chance of Khorbyn getting in, if they had known that he would get that far they would not have voted for him. I am not saying that that should be included in any "margin of error", it is still the choice people make.

The voting system does not change the result, it creates the result. Of course the split of votes would be different under something like PR, because people get to vote for more than one candidate, but you have to go by the system we use.

Arklight

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

That is not a margin of error, it is simply the way it is done.

People make the choice to vote or not to vote, a lot of people voted Khorbyn in the last election because they wanted to warn the tories, they felt that there was absolutely no chance of Khorbyn getting in, if they had known that he would get that far they would not have voted for him. I am not saying that that should be included in any "margin of error", it is still the choice people make.

The voting system does not change the result, it creates the result. Of course the split of votes would be different under something like PR, because people get to vote for more than one candidate, but you have to go by the system we use.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Arklight

Rough_Justice wrote: »

I'm sorry remainer disbelievers but it really is beginning to look more and more like there are many parts within the EU that would suffer greatly in the event of a no-deal Brexit and - unless the senior EU politicos are prepared to accept the probability of disruption from within - it is looking more and more likely that a good deal is quite possible for the UK.

We have seen mutterings and reports from Denmark, Ireland and Germany already.
Well, now it seems that there has been a new study coordinated by the European Committee of the Regions, the body which represents regions in the EU, into the possible impacts of a hard Brexit (presumably they mean a no-deal Brexit).
This from El Pais:

https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/01/12/inenglish/1515755694_911389.html

Now all we need to do is to go to those individual countries and carve out our own bespoke made-to-suit-us trade deals.


Oh wait, we can't. Because we tried that and the UK was told by every member state it reached out to that there would be no trade negotiations through any other channel than the EU. And the EU isn't going to sacrifice itself because Spanish tomato growers are worried about export tariffs to the UK.


It's absolutely absurd that you Brexit people after wailing and gnashing your teeth that the EU trumps national interests and the only way to escape its machinations is to leave, now expect national interests to trump the EU. Because it suits you now but it didn't before.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

I can’t find what the accuracy of an election or referendum is but I suspect the margin of error is considerably less than 2% and it’s the most accurate reflection of peoples opinions.

Because you still don't seem to undestand what I'm saying (on purpose?)

The referendum result was a pretty accurate 51.9/48.1, give or take a few votes, that's not in question.

The meaning of that result can only be "it's inconclusive". You can't get "the will of the people" from a 52/48.

I wonder if you would be challenging the results if they had gone your way.

I'm not challenging the result, I'm challenging the outcome. And if it was 52/48 the other way I'd be making the same claim - the inferences are meaningless - it's too close to call.

Only an idiot would change the economic environment of a country with a result that close.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

The meaning of that result can only be "it's inconclusive". You can't get "the will of the people" from a 52/48.

You sound like a Manchester City fan who thinks his team should have got a point for losing 4-3.

I'm not challenging the result, I'm challenging the outcome. And if it was 52/48 the other way I'd be making the same claim - the inferences are meaningless - it's too close to call.

Of course you would, because in that case "too close to call" would mean staying in the EU. I'm assuming that if the population had voted 52/48 in favour of Remain you wouldn't be arguing that the UK should Leave.

Arklight

Herzlos wrote: »

Because you still don't seem to undestand what I'm saying (on purpose?)

The referendum result was a pretty accurate 51.9/48.1, give or take a few votes, that's not in question.

The meaning of that result can only be "it's inconclusive". You can't get "the will of the people" from a 52/48.

I'm not challenging the result, I'm challenging the outcome. And if it was 52/48 the other way I'd be making the same claim - the inferences are meaningless - it's too close to call.

Only an idiot would change the economic environment of a country with a result that close.

You get "The will of the right wing people," which is what the Brexiteers care about.


I'm not sure they care that much about the economy. Pretty much everywhere on earth that is run by a conservative, right wing hinterland is an impoverished dump. That doesn't make them start craving democracy or liberalism.


Their own impoverishment won't make them see sense so why would the prospect of it years down the line? Especially when many of them are too advanced in years to have any prospect of seeing it.

Herzlos

Yeah I don't buy the "will of the people" argument. If they really cared about "the will of the people" they wouldn't be so against another referendum since the "will of the people" seems to have migrated across this too close to call line.

Malthusian wrote: »

You sound like a Manchester City fan who thinks his team should have got a point for losing 4-3.

Not at all. I'm saying that a result of 52/48 doesn't tell you anything. If you get that score in a rugby match, can you honestly say the team with 52 was "clearly the better team"? They won, but barely.

If you ask 100 people if you should eat in a given restaurant for lunch, 52 say "yes it's amazing" and 48 say "no it's awful"; is that a clear recommendation for the place? Do you eat there?

As I said; Leave "won" that referendum on that date. Would they win again? Who knows? Is the result clear enough to make any policy change on? Not a chance.

And if it went the other way, I'd still call it inconclusive, because it's inconclusive.

Enterprise_1701C

Arklight wrote: »

You get "The will of the right wing people," which is what the Brexiteers care about.


I'm not sure they care that much about the economy. Pretty much everywhere on earth that is run by a conservative, right wing hinterland is an impoverished dump. That doesn't make them start craving democracy or liberalism.


Their own impoverishment won't make them see sense so why would the prospect of it years down the line? Especially when many of them are too advanced in years to have any prospect of seeing it.

Like Venezuela, that used to be such an oil-rich country? Oh wait, this is the failure that Khorbyn thinks we should aspire to, probably because if, or should i say when as he has banned the opposition from standing, Maduro "wins" this year's elections, that is if they are even held, then he will almost certainly make the country a dictatorship. I should imagine Khorbyn would love the chance to do that.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

Not at all. I'm saying that a result of 52/48 doesn't tell you anything. If you get that score in a rugby match, can you honestly say the team with 52 was "clearly the better team"? They won, but barely.

No-one claims that Leave was "clearly the better team". They claim that Leave won. Which they did, just like the rugby team winning 52-48.

If you ask 100 people if you should eat in a given restaurant for lunch, 52 say "yes it's amazing" and 48 say "no it's awful"; is that a clear recommendation for the place? Do you eat there?

52 "amazing" and 48 "awful" with nothing in between means there is an astroturfing war going on between the restaurant writing its own reviews and a rival restaurant trying to sabotage them.

In reality restaurant reviews don't work anything like politics. If restaurant reviews worked like politics, every restaurant would get 45% 5 star reviews, 45% 1 star reviews, and only 10% of people would actually judge the restaurant on its merits and make an objective assessment. Interpreting TripAdvisor pages would be a tedious business of trying to work out which 10% of the reviews have been left by "floating voters". Thankfully, we don't need to do that in referenda. Whoever gets the most floating voters wins.

Neither side ever wins convincingly, because there aren't enough floating voters, so the margin of victory is irrelevant.

As I said; Leave "won" that referendum on that date. Would they win again? Who knows? Is the result clear enough to make any policy change on? Not a chance.

Yes, Leave would win.

1) Remainers are too busy scrambling for the last gravy trains out of the station to mount an effective second campaign.

2) Too many floating voters have been turned off by the lies told by Remain in the last campaign (the Emergency Budget, the extra 4p on income tax, the sweeping cuts to public services, an immediate collapse in the stockmarket and mass unemployment and recession) and the hate-filled negativity that Remain has been spewing for the past year and a half. Even if they don't want to vote Leave, they won't vote Remain.

Why do you think why none of the leading Remainers are calling for a second referendum, even though they are in charge, and even though they have nothing to lose?

And if it went the other way, I'd still call it inconclusive, because it's inconclusive.

You'd be able to call it whatever you wanted, given that Remain would have won, and Britain would be staying in the EU.

tracey3596

ilovehouses wrote: »

Of course you don't want the UK to go down the same route because it would mean the UK government laying bare the negative impact of brexit.

So far that has consisted of:

* Increased employment/record low unemployment.
* Wages showing the first signs of increasing after years of stagnation.
* Continued steady growth.
* Record levels of investment into the UK - in turn leading to hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created.
* Manufacturing and exporting increasing.
* No far-right extremism represented in our parliament, unlike in mainland Europe.
* Above all, officially according to the ONS people are happier!
:T

But sure, you carry on dreaming that your "negative impact" would somehow persuade a change of heart in the British public.
Besides which (as has been said) too many lies have been told by remainers and EU officials.