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)

Re: Brexit (New).

I don't care what they do as long as they finally make a decision instead of fannying around trying not to come to a consensus.

Re: Brexit (New).

As per the Radio 4 news yesterday, if Parliament takes over and passes legislation, the Government has a right to ask the Queen to refuse to give the bill royal assent.

This has not been done since 1707.

Re: Brexit (New).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35989247)

I don't care what they do as long as they finally make a decision instead of fannying around trying not to come to a consensus.

Something she should have done to start with.

Re: Brexit (New).

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35989238)

How anyone can believe a poll of (on average) 2000 people reflects the entire nation is beyond me.

As Mick says, the only poll that matters is the one with the cross in the box.

Hope this clarifies thing - statistical methodology explained.

http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org...opinion-polls/

Quote:

3. How does a poll choose a sample that is truly representative?
There two main methods. The first is “random” sampling, the second “quota sampling”. With random sampling, a polling company either uses a list of randomly-drawn telephone numbers or email addresses (for telephone or some Internet polls); or visits randomly-drawn addresses or names from a list such as an electoral register (for some face-to-face surveys). The polling company then contacts people on those telephone numbers or at those addresses, and asks them to take part in the survey.

“Quota” sampling involves setting quotas — for example, age and gender — and seeking out different people in each location who, together, match those characteristics. Quota polls are often used in face-to-face surveys. In addition, some Internet polls employ quota samples to select representative samples from a database of people who have already provided such information about themselves...

...7. How can you possibly tell what millions of people think by asking just 1,000 or 2,000 respondents?
In much the same way that a chef can judge a large vat of soup by tasting just one spoonful. Providing that the soup has been well stirred, so that the spoonful is properly “representative”, one spoonful is sufficient. Polls operate on the same principle: achieving representative samples is broadly akin to stirring the soup. A non-scientific survey is like an unstirred vat of soup. A chef could drink a large amount from the top of the vat, and still obtain a misleading view if some of the ingredients have sunk to the bottom. Just as the trick in checking soup is to stir well, rather than to drink lots, so the essence of a scientific poll is to secure a representative sample, rather than a vast one

8. But isn’t there some risk of sampling error in a poll of 1,000 or 2,000 people?
Yes. Statistical theory allows us to estimate this. Imagine a country that divides exactly equally on some issue — 50% hold one view while the other 50% think the opposite. Statistical theory tells us that, in a random poll of 1,000 people, with a 100% response rate, then 19 times out of 20, a poll will be accurate to within 3%. In other words, it will record at least 47%, and no more than 53%, for each view. But there is a one in 20 chance that the poll will fall outside this range.

With a sample of 2,000, the poll will be within 2% 19 times out of 20.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35989248)

It was also in the Times today -can’t see her agreeing to do that.

Re: Brexit (New).

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35989251)

Something she should have done to start with.

Agreed. Would the following order have worked better?
1. Come to a consensus
2. Devise a plan.
3. Don't invoke Article 50 until EU is happy to can Withdrawal Agreement as the Withdrawal Agreement weakens our negotiating position.
4. Then, finally invoke Article 50.

Appreciate the above would take time and would disappoint those who believed it was an easy process. However, it could result in a better deal and swifter Brexit.

Re: Brexit (New).

Until it becomes proven fact atheory remains a theory.

Re: Brexit (New).

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35989256)

Until it becomes proven fact atheory remains a theory.

That's not what theory means in this context.

Re: Brexit (New).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35989093)

So, long extension, Soft Brexit with possible confirmatory public vote ahead. GE also on the table now.

I saw Steve Brine on TV just now and now he is released from the shackles of Government, he is saying that TM should have reached out for a consensus in Parliament 2 years ago. Ouch ..

I have previously thought that JC is just a clueless clown but maybe I was wrong? He is nearer a GE now more than ever and when this happens, who do the disenfranchised centre ground voters choose? A Tory Party led by a Hard Brexiter like Johnson/Raab or Labour party promising a Soft brexit or No Brexit at all. I think that many will hold their nose and vote Labour.

The Tory brand is so damaged now: so many will not forgive them. This includes the hard core Leavers who will feel betrayed and the tribal Tory voters who cannot believe that their party have come to this.

I think the new polls are starting to validate this possible future. I said right at the beginning of this journey: Vote Brexit, Get Corbyn and this may yet play out.

The Tory (and to a lesser extent Labour) brand is so damaged that anything is possible now. Cameron may go down in history as not only as the man who inflicted Brexit on the country but as the man who broke his party in the process. Not a bad day's work!

Re: Brexit (New).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35989253)

Hope this clarifies thing - statistical methodology explained.
http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org...opinion-polls/

With a sample of 2,000, the poll will be within 2% 19 times out of 20.

Great explanation.
There's a temptation to take polls like a tip for a horse race. If they don't give me the right tip for the 3:30 at Haydock then they're wrong!
The reality as you show is that things are more nuanced.

---------- Post added at 10:46 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35989259)

I remember you saying that about Brexit and it's looking more likely now than three years ago!
I think when it comes to parties the analysis has shown that the gap exists for a party that is more interventionist in the economy but less liberal on crime. At the moment, you can't seem to get both together.

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35989258)

That's not what theory means in this context.

Exactly. They're not trying to prove a proposition one way or the other.

Re: Brexit (New).

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35989256)

Until it becomes proven fact atheory remains a theory.

It’s a proven methodology, not a theory...

Re: Brexit (New).

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35989248)

Yes, but then Mr Speaker prevented the government holding Meaningful Vote 3 on the basis of a precedent set in 1604. What’s sauce for the goose and all that...

Re: Brexit (New).

Bringing the Queen into it would be a disaster and a huge mistake for the Monarchy and given how the Queen has handled her role I suspect she knows that and will stay well clear.

Re: Brexit (New).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35989136)

To my mind, the conditions that the EU wants to impose if we crash out and then wish to open trade talks are too onerous for the UK to accept. I believe that they chucked the £39 billion in as well.

Should we have a Leave PM, then we can say no to the EU bullies;,we’ve already announced our tariffs and all that will settle down.

The only other sensible course is to remain in the EU and constantly prick them with our picador sticks. The edifice May crumble anyway given the fact that the Euro is not properly underpinned by across-EU assets and fiscal policies.

Unfortunately we have a largly remain parliment, how seem to be going against the leavers.

WE need a massive deselection of MPs

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35989238)

How anyone can believe a poll of (on average) 2000 people reflects the entire nation is beyond me.

As Mick says, the only poll that matters is the one with the cross in the box.

The trouble is the reaminers can't accept the result, and still come out with the same what have you got to be scared of with a second referendum.

---------- Post added at 16:44 ---------- Previous post was at 16:43 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35989307)

Bringing the Queen into it would be a disaster and a huge mistake for the Monarchy and given how the Queen has handled her role I suspect she knows that and will stay well clear.

The Queen has no power over parliment thanks to Charles the first and Oliver Cromwell days.

Re: Brexit (New).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35989308)

The trouble is the reaminers can't accept the result, and still come out with the same what have you got to be scared of with a second referendum.

l think the vast majority have accepted the result but what no one likes is the complete omnishambles and political infighting civil war we have had in these past 30 months.