Cable Forum - Brexit

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Brexit (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33707507)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997340)

Do the Brexit Party have 650 odd candidates who will stand up to the scrutiny of a General Election?

Does any party?
Just look at the idiots/clowns/incompetents that we currently have :rolleyes:

Here is YouGov's reasoning for the decision to put them in other: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...-why-its-more-

How pollsters ask questions is an eternally controversial issue. For voting intention, that often focuses upon how the answer options are presented. The approach that YouGov has always taken is to prompt for the traditional main parties, but only prompt for other parties if people select "other". A similar approach is taken by most other polling companies.

This may seem unfair to some people (and has often been a source of complaint from supporters of smaller parties), but is based on what actually gets elections right. In the past, prompting for smaller parties has tended to overstate their support when compared to actual elections, and the two-stage approach to prompting has produced more accurate results.

Quote:

However, there comes a point when a small party becomes a big party, when they should be included in the main prompt. This can be a difficult decision, and one that YouGov takes time and care to call correctly, thoroughly testing any changes before they go ahead. This was the approach we took before the 2015 election when UKIP were breaking through. We regularly tested the effect of prompting on UKIP support, and, once it seemed it was no longer giving them an artifical boost, we started including UKIP in the main prompt alongside Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

We are at that same point with the Brexit Party now - testing the impact prompting has and what their support would be in a write-in question without any prompting for any of the parties. If we are confident that including them in the main prompt will produce more accurate results than grouping them with "others", we will update our question prompting.

However, at the same time we also need to make sure we do not overstate support for the Brexit Party. YouGov correctly predicted the outcome of last week's EU Parliament elections, including the level of support for the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens - but like many pollsters we overstated support for the Brexit Party, putting them at 37% compared to the 31.6% they actually achieved in Great Britain. Over the next few weeks, we will also be looking at the possible causes of that overstatement, and whether there was something to do with turnout, undecided voters or our weighting or sampling scheme that led to us having too many Brexit voters in our final poll.

As ever, our main consideration will be what is most likely to produce the most accurate results, not what would help one party or another, and we will continue to keep our methods under constant review.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35997342)

Don't know, but there's plenty of pensioners around with nothing better to do but screw it up for future generations, whilst happily bleeding the country dry themselves!

If you're really interested, the Lord Ashcroft Polling Group publish their data sets including demographics. The mean age of those surveyed was 53.29. Here are the mean ages for each group who voted in the EU elections;

Con - 55.45
Lab - 46.21
LD - 53.58
UKIP - 51.48
Brex - 58.76
ChUK - 51
SNP - 50.76
PC - 51.12
GRN - 47.65

Bear in mind that the standard deviation is around 15 so that's the size pinch of salt needing to be taken here.

Here's the data - https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-con...ay-2019-2.xlsx

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997382)

I don't know why you are trying to stir up hatred of the older generation, Mr K.

If the older and wiser people are telling you something that you don't agree with, maybe you should think on. No good complaining after the event.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------

It's called balance, Andrew.

Age doesn't equate to wisdom. I see plenty of racist, old and unenlightened bigots about. Maybe just as there's a minimum age to vote there should be a maximum? Those closest to death, statistically, have the least to lose from their foolish decision making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997392)

What you see here folks, is a massive slur on the people that once worked hard to give you what is now being stolen by the EU

shame . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35997394)

What you see here folks, is a massive slur on the people that once worked hard to give you what is now being stolen by the EU

shame . .

It's not really a massive slur - Old Boy tried to equate age with wisdom - which is incorrect. I regularly encounter situations where people continually, to this day, use outdated 1980s terminology to describe corner shops and Chinese take-aways.

Also, given the huge structural deficit in this country, I'm not sure it can be said that the previous generations worked hard and paid their fair share at all. More like they mortgaged off the state assets through privatisation to enjoy a low tax economy and left future generations paying the debt. However, that's an argument for another thread...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35997394)

What you see here folks, is a massive slur on the people that once worked hard to give you what is now being stolen by the EU

shame . .

The baby boomer generation, worked hard? :D Early retirement, free buses & TV licences ,generous pensions .... However they are making sure no one in the future gets that !

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997395)

Wisdom as nothing to do with age as its more a case of people having the ability to garner great wisdom as some are far better then others at gaining great knowledge of the world then others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997362)

Now you are just being frankly, very silly.

Nobody can prove otherwise ;)

Although I agree, I think he'd be far too busy elsewhere extending Russian influence around the globe than deciding who should stand for the party in Bridgwater and West Somerset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997398)

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

How about you demonstrate you have proof of Putin funding the BP. (Very pathetic claim btw and desperate).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997401)

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

How about you demonstrate you have proof of Putin funding the BP. (Very pathetic claim btw and desperate).

I think most people would accept I was trying to inject humour into a thread that often lacks it. The notion of Putin personally sitting in the Kremlin with a dossier of candidates vetting them is rather unlikely.

Who funds the Brexit Party is an important question but it's much more likely to be secretive corporate financial interests (nothing new) than the Russian state itself. Conservatives have their donors, Labour have their unions, everyone is buying influence in politics that's the poisonous underbelly of capitalism. As Neil Diamond says "money talks".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35997396)

The baby boomer generation, worked hard? :D Early retirement, free buses & TV licences ,generous pensions .... However they are making sure no one in the future gets that !

They earned their way, the young need to do the same and not expect freebies for doing Sweet FA.

But as for this ageism crap that you are displaying, Mr K, today you have posted absolute dire and ridiculous claims all day - go back to bed and get out the right side. Jeez. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:04 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997402)

The voters talked and they voted to leave (more than once).

But we can't ask them directly again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997405)

But we can't ask them directly again.

We don't need to, we gave them our answer.

I'll accept we don't need to, in the sense that it's not mandatory. It will however be politically expedient to do so. Just as crashing out on March 29th wasn't politically expedient.