3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The UK electorate comprises about 47,000,000 people.

 

A statistical sample needs to be random and of sufficient size to attain a confidence level and a confidence interval (These are defined and provable mathematical properties).

 

A sample size of 2048 from an electorate of around 47 million will give a confidence level of 95% with a confidence interval of slightly over +/-2%.

 

That’s a mathematical fact, not some feeling in your granny’s bones opinion.

You may quote it as a mathematical fact, I see it as BS.

If you pick 2 people out of a group of 50,000 and they both answered yes to a question, can you believe that over 90% of that group would also have answered yes?

3 hours ago, marko kok prong said:

As someone who has investments in the Uk,as well as any other Uk expats who do or who have pensions ect,this is looking grim for the pound and our exchange rates,a no deal scenario i can see it falling below 40 baht.

Yes but we have are laws and borders back if the DUP agree  all the immigrants have gone the 350mill has been returned Boris and co said we will end with a better deal out than in and the pound has been reduced to 75p so nothing to worry about?

1 minute ago, loong said:

You may quote it as a mathematical fact, I see it as BS.

If you pick 2 people out of a group of 50,000 and they both answered yes to a question, can you believe that over 90% of that group would also have answered yes?

Lots of companies and organisations believe differently, otherwise they would not repeatedly pay top dollar for polling data.

 

I can understand you scepticism - it seems counter intuitive indeed, but here is an article from Scientific American which explains the principle:

 

How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?

12 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Because then Farage and his friends would not have been able to conspire to rook the currency markets for 300 million pounds?

That was just one of many instances RR, there are numerous occasions when the pollsters have got it wrong.

It has a lot to do with who is asking the question, who is answering the question and how biased the person who is asking the question, the age group being asked the question and many more besides.

15 minutes ago, loong said:

You may quote it as a mathematical fact, I see it as BS.

If you pick 2 people out of a group of 50,000 and they both answered yes to a question, can you believe that over 90% of that group would also have answered yes?

No because 2 people would not be a big enough sample.

 

Arguing with mathematics now rather than facing reality.

 

 

Unless it's a hard brexit and strict on islamic immigration it's probably better to remain

A soft brexit would be worse than remaining currently

27 minutes ago, loong said:

I have no need to research anything, common sense tells me that a poll of 0.004% is not going to reflect the opinion accurately

Correct, and common sense will tell you if you flip a coin Schrodinger's pet cat will still be in the box.

More data means more information with the codicil it also means more false information.

A long queue begins to form behind a sign that reads, ‘If I’d been running Brexit it would be going swimmingly.’

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The views of a at least half the electorate are not being represented 

 

An issue that will show up in the forthcoming Party Political Conferences.

 

 

 

Tough. At the time of the referendum everybody who was registered to vote had the chance to do so.

 

For those who were to lazy to get off their arrrse and vote my response is that is their problem. If you had the opportunity and couldn't be bothered to vote then don't complain.

 

Those who DID bother made their selection and the Leavers won and the Remainers lost.

 

Your problem is that you assume that you are right when in truth you have no idea.

 

Where did you get the figure and I quote you here from your post.

 

quote "

The views of a at least half the electorate are not being represented."

45 minutes ago, vogie said:

If polls are so marvellous and reliable, why do they get it wrong, like the lead up to brexit, polls showed that remain was a clear leader.

I have offered an explanation for this anomaly several times in different threads, and to date nobody has challenged me or offered an alternative logical explanation, so here it is again:

 

When someone is interviewed for a poll, they are generally asked how they have voted in the past. If they say they have never bothered to vote before, the pollsters exclude them from the results they declare, assuming their subject will not break the habit of a lifetime. The problem with the Referendum was that a huge number of people who had never voted in a General Election turned out. I have seen the figure of 2.8 million first time voters quoted - this seems very high so presumably includes the 18 and 19 year olds, but there appear to have been well over a million, and the vast majority of this group voted Leave. This would have been sufficient to overturn the pre-Referendum polling figures and produce the final result.

 

I personally believe that this led to complacency among Remain supporters, many of whom did not vote thinking victory was assured (a significant majority of non-voters say they would have voted Remain). It is also slightly worrying that the Brexit vote was effectively decided by people who had shown so little interest in the future of their country previously that they had never felt the need to vote.

 

 

 

 

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The UK electorate comprises about 47,000,000 people.

 

A statistical sample needs to be random and of sufficient size to attain a confidence level and a confidence interval (These are defined and provable mathematical properties).

 

A sample size of 2048 from an electorate of around 47 million will give a confidence level of 95% with a confidence interval of slightly over +/-2%.

 

That’s a mathematical fact, not some feeling in your granny’s bones opinion.

Take 25000 which was the sample size and divide that by 47,000,000 and the result comes to around 5.3191489361702127659574468085106e-4 which is an infinitesimal figure to claim the accuracy of 95% +/-2%. 

37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No because 2 people would not be a big enough sample.

 

Arguing with mathematics now rather than facing reality.

 

 

 

Do you mean to say the 2 out of 50,000 is not as accurate as 25,000 compared to 47,000,000?

I am not from the UK but I follow the news about Brexit like a soap opera - except nobody would believe such a plot in a soap opera.

I can understand that some people are not happy with the EU and maybe they voted leave because somehow they though it must be better outside of the EU.

But after reading probably hundreds or articles I can't see how the UK could be possibly better off without the EU. Soft or hard or no deal it's all bad or very bad for the UK. And it should be obvious to everyone who follows the news.

I think this is one of those examples which show that it's not a good idea to let uneducated, uninformed people make decisions about important issues. Democracy with idiots does not work in the way it was intended to work.

32 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Take 25000 which was the sample size and divide that by 47,000,000 and the result comes to around 5.3191489361702127659574468085106e-4 which is an infinitesimal figure to claim the accuracy of 95% +/-2%. 

You’re arithmetic is correct, your understanding of the mathematics of statistics is, on the evidence of you comments, non existent.

31 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Do you mean to say the 2 out of 50,000 is not as accurate as 25,000 compared to 47,000,000?

Somebody else who is eager to tell the world they din’tunderst Statistics.

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Not necessarily true

Of course not, sorry I should have added an emoticon but I nevertheless think it is probably the tendency. 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’re arithmetic is correct, your understanding of the mathematics of statistics is, on the evidence of you comments, non existent.

 

Absolutely but perhaps the statistics are screwed up too.

 

If you have absolute sure fire faith in them, then good for you.

 

I don't trust them at all.

 

You can get any poll result you want but adjusting the questions, the poll numbers, who you poll etc so if you are relying on polls and statistics it is a dodgy area to be. 

 

The prime example is the polls leading up to the referendum who forecast that Remain would win by a comfortable majority, yet they were completely wrong, though statistically they were right.

 

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Somebody else who is eager to tell the world they din’tunderst Statistics.

 

But who really cares what you think?

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

 

Absolutely but perhaps the statistics are screwed up too.

 

If you have absolute sure fire faith in them, then good for you.

 

I don't trust them at all.

 

You can get any poll result you want but adjusting the questions, the poll numbers, who you poll etc so if you are relying on polls and statistics it is a dodgy area to be. 

 

The prime example is the polls leading up to the referendum who forecast that Remain would win by a comfortable majority, yet they were completely wrong, though statistically they were right.

 

 

But who really cares what you think?

If you don’t trust statistics at all don’t ever fly anywhere, drive a car, ride in an elevator take any medication.

 

The safety of all these any many others things in our modern life is determined by statistics and very specifically by the exact mathematics of sampling and ‘confidence’ measurement applied in polls.

2 hours ago, vogie said:

If polls are so marvellous and reliable, why do they get it wrong, like the lead up to brexit, polls showed that remain was a clear leader.

Pretty much the same as the US electon, it's not the polls that are fickle, it's the people.

 

Nowt queerer than folk.

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

Do you mean to say the 2 out of 50,000 is not as accurate as 25,000 compared to 47,000,000?

Now you're beginning to understand.

14 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Pretty much the same as the US electon, it's not the polls that are fickle, it's the people.

 

Nowt queerer than folk.

So if the people are unreliable, the polls will be unreliable too.

3 hours ago, mfd101 said:

You're assuming that lack of information made people vote for Brexit. Probably true in some cases but I suspect Brexit-voting & Trump-voting is more like the basic prejudices we're all born with (racism, homophobia & sexism) and which, in civilized parts of the world, we are subsequently trained out of.

 

The point is that Brexit, like the great prejudices of mankind, is basically about EMOTIONS. Lack of information did not cause it. Supplying more information will not, mostly, make it go away. You have to change people's emotions.

Agree totally but misinformation fed those emotions.

 

Will Brexit bring an end to immigration?

 

Has Trump built that wall?

 

Also appealed to a baser instinct. Money.

 

Higher salaries, more affordable healthcare, more jobs for ordinary working people in the US?

 

More cash in the treasury, billions extra for the NHS, boost to exports in the UK?

5 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

"British opinion still deeply divided by Brexit: poll"

Yes, young working generations on one side and old and bitter generation on the other!

 

 

 

At the same time it shows that less than one in five people now expect Britain to secure a good Brexit deal.  In other words 80% now see that Brexit is a failure.  Clearly they haven't asked the Brexiteers on TV yet! ?

2 hours ago, loong said:

You may quote it as a mathematical fact, I see it as BS.

If you pick 2 people out of a group of 50,000 and they both answered yes to a question, can you believe that over 90% of that group would also have answered yes?

No, you still don't understand.

3 hours ago, vogie said:

Is that a month or a year?

"an extra ten thousand pound a week in me pension" .............................The clue's in there somewhere!

Brexiteers arguing with the principals of mathematics is taking their denial of reality to delightful absurdity.

7 minutes ago, sjbrownderby said:

"an extra ten thousand pound a week in me pension" .............................The clue's in there somewhere!

Has it made a difference to your life and have you told the DWP about it, I'd keep stum if I was you.

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Brexiteers arguing with the principals of mathematics is taking their denial of reality to delightful absurdity.

Brexiteers voted and won. Do all the polls and maths you like but the uk chose to leave and they are. Annoying I know as my money is also generated there but they voted and leave they will. Time will tell if it was the right thing to do but you can’t change it and neither will some poxy poll 

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

Has it made a difference to your life and have you told the DWP about it, I'd keep stum if I was you.

Not yet but I expect there will be a huge difference when we get the empire back.

2 hours ago, aright said:

Correct, and common sense will tell you if you flip a coin Schrodinger's pet cat will still be in the box.

More data means more information with the codicil it also means more false information.

So, in other words the bigger the sample size there will be correspondingly false information?