Brexit has completely failed for UK, say clear majority of Britons – poll

[youreavinalaff]

55 minutes ago, RayC said:

UK electorate perceive Brexit to have been a failure up to now. 

You mean " 2132 of the UK electorate that took part in the survey".

 

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

You mean " 2132 of the UK electorate that took part in the survey".

 

 

 

That is by definition true but - as I and others explained previously and repeatedly - assuming that this survey was conducted in a statistically sound manner it can be considered representative of the wider population.

 

However, I was careless with my phrasing. Like 'The Guardian' I ignored the 'Dont knows'. What I should have said was:

 

"The results are plain for all to see, and the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from them is that more of the UK electorate perceive Brexit to have been a failure than a success up to now."

 

I have long forgotten - assuming I ever knew - the formulas for calculating sample sizes (I'm certain that I was never able to prove the formulas). Nevertheless, I accept the formulas as being correct. Apparently you do not.

 

Google defines Statistics as "the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample"

 

You seem to be questioning the validity of this statement. There are a multitude of statistical texts online which might be able to answer the questions you appear to have regarding Statistics as a discipline. I can only suggest that you have a look at some of them.

 

[youreavinalaff]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

assuming that this survey was conducted in a statistically sound manner it can be considered representative of the wider population.

Stop right here. 

 

Simple.

[RayC]

49 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Stop right here. 

 

Simple.

 

That's a cryptic response.

 

One - possibly two - simple question(s):

 

Do you believe that the survey was not conducted in a statistically sound manner?

 

If so, do you have any evidence to support that view?

[youreavinalaff]

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

That's a cryptic response.

 

One - possibly two - simple question(s):

 

Do you believe that the survey was not conducted in a statistically sound manner?

 

If so, do you have any evidence to support that view?

Throughout this thread I have made my views clear.

 

You must be suffering from selective reading.

[RayC]

33 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Throughout this thread I have made my views clear.

 

You must be suffering from selective reading.

 

No selective reading on my part; selective answering on yours.

 

Why do you find it so difficult to answer questions directly? Actually, that's a rhetorical question: The answer is obvious. By doing so, you will highlight the flaws and inconsistencies in your argument.

 

You do not make your views clear; you imply things. Your very first comment in this thread (reproduced below) implies - without stating explicitly - that the methodology of this study is somehow flawed and that the findings are not representative of the wider UK population. Even after the basics of survey methodology are explained to you e.g. sampling frames, random sampling, etc. you persist with your objections. When I challenge you directly to describe the flaws in the survey's methodology and/or supply a link which does so, you cannot. Instead, you make some cryptic remark and insist that your views are clear.

 

So, one last try try: Do you believe that the methodology of the survey in question is flawed? If so, can you please explain how?

 

_-----------+++++++++++

"Just over 2000 polled.

 

Not a clear majority of Britons.

 

A majority of those polled, by the Guardian, at an unknown location, of an unknown age, background.........the list goes on."

[youreavinalaff]

31 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

No selective reading on my part; selective answering on yours.

 

Why do you find it so difficult to answer questions directly? Actually, that's a rhetorical question: The answer is obvious. By doing so, you will highlight the flaws and inconsistencies in your argument.

 

You do not make your views clear; you imply things. Your very first comment in this thread (reproduced below) implies - without stating explicitly - that the methodology of this study is somehow flawed and that the findings are not representative of the wider UK population. Even after the basics of survey methodology are explained to you e.g. sampling frames, random sampling, etc. you persist with your objections. When I challenge you directly to describe the flaws in the survey's methodology and/or supply a link which does so, you cannot. Instead, you make some cryptic remark and insist that your views are clear.

 

So, one last try try: Do you believe that the methodology of the survey in question is flawed? If so, can you please explain how?

 

_-----------+++++++++++

"Just over 2000 polled.

 

Not a clear majority of Britons.

 

A majority of those polled, by the Guardian, at an unknown location, of an unknown age, background.........the list goes on."

There are no flaws in my comments.

 

2132 people in no way resembles the UK electorate or " majority of British voters".

 

The Guardian reported this because it fits their agenda. Just the same as you did.

[RayC]

8 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

There are no flaws in my comments.

 

There are many as have been pointed out. Look back over the thread for examples 

 

8 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

2132 people in no way resembles the UK electorate

 

To repeat again:

 

You are unable to point to any flaws in this survey's methodology. The basics of statistical inference have been explained to you. You seem unwilling to accept these tenets (without explaining why) and appear, by extension, to question the validity of Statistics as a discipline.

 

8 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

or "majority of British voters"

 

I agreed that imo 'The Guardian's' headline overstated the findings but not for the reason you imply.

 

8 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

The Guardian reported this because it fits their agenda.

 

That may well be true and ....?

 

It doesn't make the findings of the survey any less true.

 

8 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

Just the same as you did.

 

The agenda I have in commenting here is to correct what I see as misinformation put forward by Brexiters such as yourself.

 

This survey's results clearly show that in a number of areas, more of the UK electorate perceive Brexit as having a negative impact than a positive one. As a Brexiter this does not fit your narrative (agenda) so you object to the findings. Unfortunately for you, your objections are based on a false argument which you refuse to acknowledge. 

 

Simple.

[Enoon]

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

There are many as have been pointed out. Look back over the thread for examples 

 

 

To repeat again:

 

You are unable to point to any flaws in this survey's methodology. The basics of statistical inference have been explained to you. You seem unwilling to accept these tenets (without explaining why) and appear, by extension, to question the validity of Statistics as a discipline.

 

 

I agreed that imo 'The Guardian's' headline overstated the findings but not for the reason you imply.

 

 

That may well be true and ....?

 

It doesn't make the findings of the survey any less true.

 

 

The agenda I have in commenting here is to correct what I see as misinformation put forward by Brexiters such as yourself.

 

This survey's results clearly show that in a number of areas, more of the UK electorate perceive Brexit as having a negative impact than a positive one. As a Brexiter this does not fit your narrative (agenda) so you object to the findings. Unfortunately for you, your objections are based on a false argument which you refuse to acknowledge. 

 

Simple.

 

The guy is clearly a time-served oaf.

 

Don't waste your energy.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

I love the people that go on about the accuracy of polls that use small sample sizes.

[impulse]

44 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I love the people that go on about the accuracy of polls that use small sample sizes.

Easy solution for that...  Go to surveymonkey and enter 3 numbers and you, too can calculate the sample size required to meet whatever accuracy requirement you'd like.  Conditioned on the caveat that the respondents have to be truly random.

 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/

[RayC]

43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I love the people that go on about the accuracy of polls that use small sample sizes.

 

I love the people who cast doubt on the validity of survey results about without, seemingly, having much idea about statistical inference or Statistics (as a discipline) in general.

 

The trials for Pfizer's COVID vaccine had 46,000 participants. (Incidentally, a relatively large sample size. Final phrase drug trials typically have 1 - 3,000 participants). The world's population is 7.9 billion. Presumably, using your rationale, we shouldn't have had any faith in the verity and validity of the Pfizer vaccine or any other drug for that matter.

 

(I do hope that my last paragraph won't cause the conspiracy theorists to awaken).

 

[youreavinalaff]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

There are many as have been pointed out. Look back over the thread for examples 

 

 

To repeat again:

 

You are unable to point to any flaws in this survey's methodology. The basics of statistical inference have been explained to you. You seem unwilling to accept these tenets (without explaining why) and appear, by extension, to question the validity of Statistics as a discipline.

 

 

I agreed that imo 'The Guardian's' headline overstated the findings but not for the reason you imply.

 

 

That may well be true and ....?

 

It doesn't make the findings of the survey any less true.

 

 

The agenda I have in commenting here is to correct what I see as misinformation put forward by Brexiters such as yourself.

 

This survey's results clearly show that in a number of areas, more of the UK electorate perceive Brexit as having a negative impact than a positive one. As a Brexiter this does not fit your narrative (agenda) so you object to the findings. Unfortunately for you, your objections are based on a false argument which you refuse to acknowledge. 

 

Simple.

I have never stated my leanings towards Brexit. You are making that up.

 

You have agreed with my comments regarding the headline. Had you done that after my first post instead of twisting and turning, it would have saved a lot of time.

 

You say I "imply". That's a lot different to " say". Now we know all of your wriggling was down to something you "think I implied".

 

 

[RayC]

42 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I have never stated my leanings towards Brexit. You are making that up.

 

Are you a Brexit supporter? As it's a direct question, I don't expect an answer.

 

You may never have explicitly stated your stance re Brexit but I cannot recall you posting positively about 'Remain' and/or the EU. On the other hand, there are numerous examples such as this where you try to find fault in articles which protray Brexit in a negative light. So, yes I am making an assumption about your position re Brexit but not without reason.

o es, I am making an assumption aboutyour position re Brexit but not without any foundation.

42 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

You have agreed with my comments regarding the headline. Had you done that after my first post instead of twisting and turning, it would have saved a lot of time.

 

No twisting and turning on my part. I have made my objections to your original statement clear. I have posed a number of questions to you, none of which you have addressed directly, let alone answered: The only person guilty of evasion is you.

 

It would have saved a lot of time if you have accepted that your provisos  about " ... unknown location, of an unknown age, background.........the list goes on" are without foundation, and do not invalidate the results of the survey which conclude that more of the UK electorate perceive Brexit to have had a negative, rather than a positive, impact.

 

42 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

You say I "imply". That's a lot different to " say". Now we know all of your wriggling was down to something you "think I implied".

 

 

 

You are now reduced to outright falsehoods. I have looked back over my posts in this thread and, as far as I can see, the only occasion in which I have used "say" in any of it's forms in our exchanges is to confirm that I have understood you correctly i.e. "Are you saying that ...", to which you replied "Yes". (Incidentally, this is also about the only occasion that I can recall where you have answered one of my questions directly): I choose my words carefully because I know how pedantic you are.

 

You accuse me of the fault of which you are guilty. Your constant evasion seemingly knows no bounds. Imo this is typical behaviour of someone who, having had the flaws in their argument laid bare for all to see,  is unable and unwilling to admit to their error. 

[youreavinalaff]

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

You are now reduced to outright falsehoods. I have looked back over my posts in this thread and, as far as I can see, the only occasion in which I have used "say" in any of it's forms in our exchanges is to confirm that I have understood you correctly i.e. "Are you saying that?"

Exactly my point. Assumptions from you about what you think I'm implying.

 

Thanks for admitting that.

 

As for posting anything positive about " Remain" or "EU", I don't recall posting anything negative.

 

Once again, I've only questioned the wording of the headline in relation to the poll. That is it.

[youreavinalaff]

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

It would have saved a lot of time if you have accepted that your provisos  about " ... unknown location, of an unknown age, background.........the list goes on" are without foundation, 

Please provide evidence from those running the poll of the location, age, background of those polled. 

 

Thanks.

[RayC]

56 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Exactly my point. Assumptions from you about what you think I'm implying.

 

Thanks for admitting that.

 

You're welcome.

 

A simple way to avoid any further misunderstandings/ misinterpretation on my part would be for you to offer direct answers my questions 

 

56 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

As for posting anything positive about " Remain" or "EU", I don't recall posting anything negative.

 

And I didn't say that you did. I simply pointed out that you often seem to take issue with articles which are negative wrt Brexit.

 

56 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Once again, I've only questioned the wording of the headline in relation to the poll. That is it.

 

Actually you also cast doubt about how a sample size of 2000-odd can be considered representative of the wider UK electoral population. If you now accept that this is possible then great.

[youreavinalaff]

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

And I didn't say that you did. I simply pointed out that you often seem to take issue with articles which are negative wrt Brexit.

Inaccurate headlines. 

 

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

Actually you also cast doubt about how a sample size of 2000-odd can be considered representative of the wider UK electoral population. If you now accept that this is possible then great.

No. I have not accepted it.

 

As I pointed out in my very first post questioning the headline.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Please provide evidence from those running the poll of the location, age, background of those polled. 

 

Thanks.

 

It appears that you have to pay for the full survey. Sorry but I'm not that inquisitive.

 

https://www.opiniumresearch.co.uk/faq.aspx#FAQLink3

('I want to buy to some market research').

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

It appears that you have to pay for the full survey. Sorry but I'm not that inquisitive.

 

https://www.opiniumresearch.co.uk/faq.aspx#FAQLink3

('I want to buy to some market research').

555.

 

Confirms my post a few pages back.

 

Quality. 

[RayC]

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

No. I have not accepted it.

 

As I pointed out in my very first post questioning the headline.

 

Maybe this link will help?

 

https://byjus.com/sample-size-formula/

 

If not, can I suggest that you search for "Sample size formula (calculation)"; "Introduction to Statistics"; "Basic Statistics", etc. 

 

I'm sure that there will be something on the web which will answer any questions you might have about sample sizes and Statistics in general.

[RayC]

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

555.

 

Confirms my post a few pages back.

 

Quality. 

 

It confirms nothing of the sort but your illogical arguments no longer surprise me.

[youreavinalaff]

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Maybe this link will help?

 

https://byjus.com/sample-size-formula/

 

If not, can I suggest that you search for "Sample size formula (calculation)"; "Introduction to Statistics"; "Basic Statistics", etc. 

 

I'm sure that there will be something on the web which will answer any questions you might have about sample sizes and Statistics in general.

No need to research anything.

 

The headline does not match the article. Simple as.

 

Nothing to do with statistics. All to do with sensationalist journalism.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

It confirms nothing of the sort but your illogical arguments no longer surprise me.

 

Selective reading again.

[RayC]

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No need to research anything.

 

It's good news that you now accept the principles behind sample size calculation and statistical inference. 

 

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

The headline does not match the article. Simple as.

 

I agreed umpteenth posts ago that imo the headline overstated the findings.

 

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Nothing to do with statistics. All to do with sensationalist journalism.

 

It's to do with both.

 

The "sensationalist journalism" does not negate the verity and validity of the survey's findings no matter how hard you try to suggest that it does.

[RayC]

17 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Selective reading again.

 

Not at all. More selective answering on your part.

 

Most of my questions remain unanswered but, given your newfound acceptance of the principles governing sample sizes, some of them are now redundant.

[youreavinalaff]

37 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Not at all. More selective answering on your part.

 

Most of my questions remain unanswered but, given your newfound acceptance of the principles governing sample sizes, some of them are now redundant.

Your questions don't refer to the headlines.

 

Your posts have far more assumptions and instances of you reading into things that aren't there, than relevant questions.

[talahtnut]

The EU is a sinking ship, so is the UK.

By courtesy of the warmongering US.

 

Get your ass to Russia or any other rational BRICS nation.

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

Easy solution for that...  Go to surveymonkey and enter 3 numbers and you, too can calculate the sample size required to meet whatever accuracy requirement you'd like.  Conditioned on the caveat that the respondents have to be truly random.

 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/

And therein lies the rub. 

 

How might that be achieved?

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I love the people who cast doubt on the validity of survey results about without, seemingly, having much idea about statistical inference or Statistics (as a discipline) in general.

 

The trials for Pfizer's COVID vaccine had 46,000 participants. (Incidentally, a relatively large sample size. Final phrase drug trials typically have 1 - 3,000 participants). The world's population is 7.9 billion. Presumably, using your rationale, we shouldn't have had any faith in the verity and validity of the Pfizer vaccine or any other drug for that matter.

 

(I do hope that my last paragraph won't cause the conspiracy theorists to awaken).

 

Guys like you crack me up. 

 

Tell me how you're going to get a random sample of UK citizens to poll. It's not possible.