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

[RayC]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Your questions don't refer to the headlines.

 

No they don't for the simple reason that we are in broad agreement about 'The Guardian' headline albeit for different reasons: I thought that we had established that?

 

My disagreement with you centres on your apparent refusal to accept sampling theory and statistical inference. 

 

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

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

 

I am forced into making reasoned assumptions and interpretations because of your refusal to answer most of my questions/ requests for confirmation directly.

[RayC]

55 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

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. 

 

You clearly have no knowledge of sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general. A quick search identified the following link which might not answer all your questions, but which offers a decent overview of random sampling and should, at least, give you a better understanding of the subject.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/simple-random-sample.asp

 

If you require further information I might be able to post additional links. Hope that this helps.

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

You clearly have no knowledge of sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general. A quick search identified the following link which might not answer all your questions, but which offers a decent overview of random sampling and should, at least, give you a better understanding of the subject.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/simple-random-sample.asp

 

If you require further information I might be able to post additional links. Hope that this helps.

 

Again, guys like you crack me up. 

 

If you know, don't you say? You can't say, because you don't know, so you post a link, and you call me ignorant. 

 

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

 

No links. 

[RayC]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Again, guys like you crack me up. 

 

If you know, don't you say? You can't say, because you don't know, so you post a link, and you call me ignorant. 

 

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

 

No links. 

 

I didn't call you ignorant. My exact words were, "You clearly have no knowledge of sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general" which I stand by.

 

The answer involves statistical theory. I posted a link which gives a good description of the steps involved in generating a sample where we can have 95% confidence that a sample result will apply to the wider population AND the technique(s) for generating a random sample. The link explains the principles much better than I can and I have no intention of wasting time and effort in a futile attempt to improve upon it.

 

Perhaps, if you could be ars-ed to read and understand the contents of the linked article, rather than continuing to play a game of one-upmanship, you might learn something and, at the same time, find the answer to (some of) your question(s).

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I didn't call you ignorant. My exact words were, "You clearly have no knowledge of sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general" which I stand by.

Is having no knowledge of something not being ignorant of it? 

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The answer involves statistical theory. I posted a link which gives a good description of the steps involved in generating a sample where we can have 95% confidence that a sample result will apply to the wider population AND the technique(s) for generating a random sample. The link explains the principles much better than I can and I have no intention of wasting time and effort in a futile attempt to improve upon it.

 

Perhaps, if you could be ars-ed to read and understand the contents of the linked article, rather than continuing to play a game of one-upmanship, you might learn something and, at the same time, find the answer to (some of) your question(s).

 You have no idea, do you? That's hilarious don't know just say you don't know.

 

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

 

No links. 

 

 

 

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Is having no knowledge of something not being ignorant of it? 

 

Definitions of ignorant (Google):

 

lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"

 

lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

"they were ignorant of astronomy"

 

I said that "You clearly have no knowledge of sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general", so there is no doubt about the sense in which I am using the word.

 

Nevertheless, you're right. When it comes to an understanding of sampling theory you appear to be ignorant in the second sense of the word.

 

Imo the vast majority of people (everyone?) are ignorant about something. There are many subjects where my ignorance would be obvious and almost complete.

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 You have no idea, do you? That's hilarious don't know just say you don't know.

 

I have no idea what point you are trying to prove unless it is to get me to admit that I do not how to mathematically prove the formulas associated with sampling theory. If that's the case, I admit it and you've 'proved' your point.

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

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

 

No links. 

 

 

 

 

 

And again and again .... I can't comply with your request for 'No links' as the answer to your question is contained in it. If you weren't so preoccupied with playing 'Gotcha', you would have realised this simple fact.

 

As I have said before, I cannot improve upon the contents of the link. Nevertheless, here is a top-level outline of the steps involved (Full disclosure: This is simply a 'copy & paste' from the link). If anything is unclear, open the link for fuller details. I'm done with trying to get you to understand things. You need to help yourself.

Nevertheless, I will detail the process to generate a representative (random) sample of the UK electorate. (Full disclosure: This is simply a 'cut & paste' of the headings contained in the link. As I mentioned previously, I have little idea how to prove these concepts mathematically. If you don't understand these steps or want further information, open the damn link):

 

1. Define the population. In this case, it's the UK electorate (+/-46m)

 

2. Choose the sample size. (A sample size calculator was supplied earlier in this thread. I can't be ars-ed to input the figures into it)

 

3. Assign Numerical Values: 

The simple random sample process calls for every unit within the population to receive an unrelated numerical value

 

4. Select random values: (for the sample identified in Step 2)

 

5. Identify the sample: The sample is selected by identifying which random values were chosen and which population items those values match.

 

(There is another step between 3) and 4) but I don't think that it is applicable here)

 

There is also a section about the various types of random sampling techniques in the link.

Edited January 3 by RayC
Addition

[impulse]

8 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And therein lies the rub. 

 

How might that be achieved?

 

I'd contend that a political survey cannot ever be truly random, just by the fact that some segment of the population won't respond to a survey.  They'll hang up.  And that segment is probably more likely to be on one side or the other.  Some segment of the population doesn't even have a phone, and that segment is probably skewed to one side.  Some will lie, and they're probably skewed to one side.  And there's probably a lot of skewing factors I'm not even thinking about, and many others that are used deliberately.

 

But it's not about the size of the survey.  It's about the randomness.  I think they can get it random enough for practical purposes, and account for factors that need to be considered.  If they want to.  For that, you have to count on the reputation and history of the surveying entity.

 

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Definitions of ignorant (Google):

 

lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"

 

lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

"they were ignorant of astronomy"

 

I said that "You clearly have no knowledge of sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general", so there is no doubt about the sense in which I am using the word.

 

Nevertheless, you're right. When it comes to an understanding of sampling theory you appear to be ignorant in the second sense of the word.

 

Imo the vast majority of people (everyone?) are ignorant about something. There are many subjects where my ignorance would be obvious and almost complete.

 

 

I have no idea what point you are trying to prove unless it is to get me to admit that I do not how to mathematically prove the formulas associated with sampling theory. If that's the case, I admit it and you've 'proved' your point.

 

 

And again and again .... I can't comply with your request for 'No links' as the answer to your question is contained in it. If you weren't so preoccupied with playing 'Gotcha', you would have realised this simple fact.

 

As I have said before, I cannot improve upon the contents of the link. Nevertheless, here is a top-level outline of the steps involved (Full disclosure: This is simply a 'copy & paste' from the link). If anything is unclear, open the link for fuller details. I'm done with trying to get you to understand things. You need to help yourself.

Nevertheless, I will detail the process to generate a representative (random) sample of the UK electorate. (Full disclosure: This is simply a 'cut & paste' of the headings contained in the link. As I mentioned previously, I have little idea how to prove these concepts mathematically. If you don't understand these steps or want further information, open the damn link):

 

1. Define the population. In this case, it's the UK electorate (+/-46m)

 

2. Choose the sample size. (A sample size calculator was supplied earlier in this thread. I can't be ars-ed to input the figures into it)

 

3. Assign Numerical Values: 

The simple random sample process calls for every unit within the population to receive an unrelated numerical value

 

4. Select random values: (for the sample identified in Step 2)

 

5. Identify the sample: The sample is selected by identifying which random values were chosen and which population items those values match.

 

(There is another step between 3) and 4) but I don't think that it is applicable here)

 

There is also a section about the various types of random sampling techniques in the link.

You are nothing if not persistent.

 

So, per your definition you called me ignorant of "...sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general"...". I'm generally reassured in my position when people like you call me ignorant. 

 

I did not ask you to cut-and-paste stuff from the link. I asked you to explain how one might get a truly random sample of the UK voters. All this, and you still won't, because can't.  

 

Seems like any easy question for someone as knowledgeable about "...sampling theory in particular and Statistics in general...". All you can do is bleat on to avoid the question while saving face.

 

If you don't know, just say you don't know.

 

To be clear, I don't thing I ever said the poll was inaccurate. 

 

[RayC]

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You are nothing if not persistent.

 

You are certainly not lacking in persistence yourself!!

 

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, per your definition you called me ignorant of "...sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general"...". I'm generally reassured in my position when people like you call me ignorant. 

 

Good. I'm pleased that you find my comment comforting.

 

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I did not ask you to cut-and-paste stuff from the link. I asked you to explain how one might get a truly random sample of the UK voters. All this, and you still won't, because can't.  

 

As I have explained countless times, I believe that the link which I posted answers your question. Imo it offers a detailed, but understandable, explanation of how to conduct a randomised survey; the process and techniques. Again, for the umpteenth time: I am unable to improve upon it and therefore, will not spend time and effort in attempting to do so. Why it is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

If you believe that my unwillingness to answer your question in my own words - which would require considerable time and effort on my part - means that I do not understand the contents of the link myself, then fine, continue to believe that. I am not going to spend time trying to convince you otherwise: To do so would be tedious, time-consuming, frustrating and probably ultimately, unsuccessful. 

 

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Seems like any easy question for someone as knowledgeable about "...sampling theory in particular and Statistics in general...". All you can do is bleat on to avoid the question while saving face.

 

I have never claimed to be a Statistical expert as you imply.  I believe that I have an understanding of the basic concepts and how they can be applied.

 

However, as I have repeatedly stated, my knowledge is limited. I do not understand the mathematical principles which underline the concepts. For example, I could plug values into the statistical equation to determine the necessary sample size but I would not be able to explain the (mathematical) logic which 'proves' the equation. I don't see this as a problem: Governments and industries throughout the world use such formulas in their surveys and that's proof enough for me.

 

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If you don't know, just say you don't know.

 

I have given up trying to understand what you think that I don't know!

 

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

To be clear, I don't thing I ever said the poll was inaccurate. 

 

 

To be clear, I don't think that I have accused you of saying that the poll was inaccurate so why address that comment to me?

 

Can there be true randomness in a survey? If a sound process is followed then I would suggest the answer is 'Yes' but I could certainly be persuaded otherwise. Can a sample used in a social survey ever completely eliminate bias and thus be truly wholly representative of the wider population? Imo, the answer is 'No' but, again, I could be persuaded otherwise. In any event, this is one of the reasons why concepts such as 'confidence limits' and 'margin of error' are used in surveys. Imo Newspapers should mention these factors rather than presenting findings as absolutes.

 

Imo the link which I presented answers your question. Even if it doesn't, it is informative.

 

In any event, we are simply going round in circles. I've said all that I'm going to say on the matter. If that is not sufficient for you then it's unfortunate. If you think that you have achieved some sort of victory then, fine, go celebrate.

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

You are certainly not lacking in persistence yourself!!

 

 

Good. I'm pleased that you find my comment comforting.

 

 

As I have explained countless times, I believe that the link which I posted answers your question. Imo it offers a detailed, but understandable, explanation of how to conduct a randomised survey; the process and techniques. Again, for the umpteenth time: I am unable to improve upon it and therefore, will not spend time and effort in attempting to do so. Why it is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

If you believe that my unwillingness to answer your question in my own words - which would require considerable time and effort on my part - means that I do not understand the contents of the link myself, then fine, continue to believe that. I am not going to spend time trying to convince you otherwise: To do so would be tedious, time-consuming, frustrating and probably ultimately, unsuccessful. 

 

 

I have never claimed to be a Statistical expert as you imply.  I believe that I have an understanding of the basic concepts and how they can be applied.

 

However, as I have repeatedly stated, my knowledge is limited. I do not understand the mathematical principles which underline the concepts. For example, I could plug values into the statistical equation to determine the necessary sample size but I would not be able to explain the (mathematical) logic which 'proves' the equation. I don't see this as a problem: Governments and industries throughout the world use such formulas in their surveys and that's proof enough for me.

 

 

I have given up trying to understand what you think that I don't know!

 

 

To be clear, I don't think that I have accused you of saying that the poll was inaccurate so why address that comment to me?

 

Can there be true randomness in a survey? If a sound process is followed then I would suggest the answer is 'Yes' but I could certainly be persuaded otherwise. Can a sample used in a social survey ever completely eliminate bias and thus be truly wholly representative of the wider population? Imo, the answer is 'No' but, again, I could be persuaded otherwise. In any event, this is one of the reasons why concepts such as 'confidence limits' and 'margin of error' are used in surveys. Imo Newspapers should mention these factors rather than presenting findings as absolutes.

 

Imo the link which I presented answers your question. Even if it doesn't, it is informative.

 

In any event, we are simply going round in circles. I've said all that I'm going to say on the matter. If that is not sufficient for you then it's unfortunate. If you think that you have achieved some sort of victory then, fine, go celebrate.

So, we agree, you don't know, thanks. Now was that so hard? 

[RayC]

57 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, we agree, you don't know, thanks. Now was that so hard? 

 

You're right. I don't know (although what I don't know I don't know).

 

"Now was that so hard?" It was bloody torture!

[nausea]

Yeah, there's kind of a push to blame current woes on Brexit. This poll sorta fits in with that. Convenient scapegoat, I suppose. Whatever, we're circling the drain. As is Europe. So I don't see that Brexit matters one way or the other.

[Chomper Higgot]

On 1/1/2024 at 5:25 PM, youreavinalaff said:

I could quite easily do a poll and get opposite answers. 

 

Those taking out opinion polls carefully choose thier audience. That way they get the answers they want.

 

I believe your link showed a poll of 2132. That's just over 2000.

 

Citing Wikipedia is just plain silly.

Odd then that we don’t see any polls declaring BREXT a raging success.

[Yellowtail]

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Odd then that we don’t see any polls declaring BREXT a raging success.

The poll that is the subject of this thread has nothing to do with whether or not Brexit was or was not a success, it only has to do with what the public's perception of whether or not Brexit is a success. 

 

I'm betting you would cite this poll as evidence that Brexit was a dismal failure, and that you would cite the Bidenomic polls as evidence that of how misinformed the public is. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The poll that is the subject of this thread has nothing to do with whether or not Brexit was or was not a success, it only has to do with what the public's perception of whether or not Brexit is a success. 

 

I'm betting you would cite this poll as evidence that Brexit was a dismal failure, and that you would cite the Bidenomic polls as evidence that of how misinformed the public is. 

 

 

OK.

 

Any polls showing growing support for BREXIT?

 

Or any polls indicating any positive public opinion on anything BREXIT?

[cmjl]

On 1/1/2024 at 10:01 AM, placeholder said:

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/30/britons-brexit-bad-uk-poll-eu-finances-nhs

The UK haven't got Brexit.

 

Figures can be and are skewed to fit the agenda.

 

The Guardian is a left wing pro EU newspaper.

 

How questions are phrased will get different answers.

[Rampant Rabbit]

On 1/1/2024 at 6:11 PM, placeholder said:

Right. Professional pollsters don't understand statistics or just make their selections up. You've got nothing

when you pay people to fill  in surveys youve already lost the plot.

[RayC]

4 hours ago, cmjl said:

The UK haven't got Brexit.

 

So what does Brexit look like? What measures should the government take to ensure that the UK does get Brexit?

 

4 hours ago, cmjl said:

 

Figures can be and are skewed to fit the agenda.

 

They can but how are they in this instance?

 

4 hours ago, cmjl said:

 

The Guardian is a left wing pro EU newspaper.

 

And .... ?

 

4 hours ago, cmjl said:

How questions are phrased will get different answers.

 

It can but apart from reversing the order from, " .. good to bad ..." to " ... bad to good ..", which is not normal convention, how else could/ should this particular question have been posed?

[Chomper Higgot]

On 1/4/2024 at 6:59 AM, impulse said:

 

I'd contend that a political survey cannot ever be truly random, just by the fact that some segment of the population won't respond to a survey.  They'll hang up.  And that segment is probably more likely to be on one side or the other.  Some segment of the population doesn't even have a phone, and that segment is probably skewed to one side.  Some will lie, and they're probably skewed to one side.  And there's probably a lot of skewing factors I'm not even thinking about, and many others that are used deliberately.

 

But it's not about the size of the survey.  It's about the randomness.  I think they can get it random enough for practical purposes, and account for factors that need to be considered.  If they want to.  For that, you have to count on the reputation and history of the surveying entity.

 

Do you have data that demonstrates people who hang up are probably more likely to be one side or the other?

 

Or did you simply dream that up to illustrate your ignorance of the mathematics of sampling?

[Chomper Higgot]

On 1/7/2024 at 2:16 PM, Yellowtail said:

The poll that is the subject of this thread has nothing to do with whether or not Brexit was or was not a success, it only has to do with what the public's perception of whether or not Brexit is a success. 

 

I'm betting you would cite this poll as evidence that Brexit was a dismal failure, and that you would cite the Bidenomic polls as evidence that of how misinformed the public is. 

 

 

How about providing some solid evidence of BREXIT being a success?

 

Or are those ‘warm sunlit uplands’ still over the horizon?

 

 

Edited January 17 by Chomper Higgot

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How about providing some solid evidence of BREXIT being a success?

 

Or are those ‘warm sunlit uplands’ still over the horizon?

 

 

The poll that is the subject of this thread has nothing to do with whether or not Brexit was or was not a success, it only has to do with what the public's perception of whether or not Brexit is a success. 

 

I'm betting you would cite this poll as evidence that Brexit was a dismal failure, and that you would cite the Bidenomic polls as evidence that of how misinformed the public is. 

[Yellowtail]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you have data that demonstrates people who hang up are probably more likely to be one side or the other?

 

Or did you simply dream that up to illustrate your ignorance of the mathematics of sampling?

The "mathematics of sampling" generally assumes random samples, which anyone not ignorant of statistics knows is not possible. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The "mathematics of sampling" generally assumes random samples, which anyone not ignorant of statistics knows is not possible. 

And it also does something around ‘sample size’, ‘confidence’.

 

Your focus on ‘randomness’ rather than ‘representative sample’ further illustrates your ignorance on the subject.

 

But here’s the kicker.

 

Repeated surveys since BREXIT by multiple organizations consistently indicate public opinion moving against BREXIT.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And it also does something around ‘sample size’, ‘confidence’.

 

Your focus on ‘randomness’ rather than ‘representative sample’ further illustrates your ignorance on the subject.

 

But here’s the kicker.

 

Repeated surveys since BREXIT by multiple organizations consistently indicate public opinion moving against BREXIT.

 

 

I do not doubt for a moment that "Repeated surveys since BREXIT by multiple organizations consistently indicate public opinion moving against BREXIT.".

 

The press/media/left (redundant) does a lot (including publishing surveys) to form public opinion. Press/media/left (redundant) hates BREXIT, and they are doing all they can to stir up discontent about it.

 

How about you provide some solid evidence of BREXIT not being a success? 

 

[RayC]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The poll that is the subject of this thread has nothing to do with whether or not Brexit was or was not a success, it only has to do with what the public's perception of whether or not Brexit is a success. 

 

I'm betting you would cite this poll as evidence that Brexit was a dismal failure, and that you would cite the Bidenomic polls as evidence that of how misinformed the public is. 

 

So are you saying that the public's perception of the relative success of a political act is either a) unimportant and/or b) not a suitable criterion by which to judge the success of that act? (Note: I am suggesting that it is the only criterion).

[RayC]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not doubt for a moment that "Repeated surveys since BREXIT by multiple organizations consistently indicate public opinion moving against BREXIT.".

 

The press/media/left (redundant) does a lot (including publishing surveys) to form public opinion. Press/media/left (redundant) hates BREXIT, and they are doing all they can to stir up discontent about it.

 

How about you provide some solid evidence of BREXIT not being a success? 

 

 

There you go:

 

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions

 

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/?_sft_theme=the-economics-of-brexit

 

The 'UK in a Changing Europe' site (2nd link) contains an extremely large number of reports. I can't claim to have read more than snippets from a handful of the reports, however, the overwhelming view appears to support the contention that Brexit has had a negative effect in a number of ways on the UK.

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

So are you saying that the public's perception of the relative success of a political act is either a) unimportant...

Not at all

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

and/or b) not a suitable criterion by which to judge the success of that act?

It would depend on the act. 

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

(Note: I am suggesting that it is the only criterion).

So, if you took all the money from the top 10% and gave it to the bottom 90%, a poll showing wide public support would prove it was a successful program? 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

Just now, RayC said:

 

There you go:

 

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions

 

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/?_sft_theme=the-economics-of-brexit

 

The 'UK in a Changing Europe' site (2nd link) contains an extremely large number of reports. I can't claim to have read more than snippets from a handful of the reports, however, the overwhelming view appears to support the contention that Brexit has had a negative effect in a number of ways on the UK.

So, you don't know. I don't either, but we're to assume a polling of the general public is a good way to measure it. 

[RayC]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not at all

 

So what point are you trying to make?

 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It would depend on the act. 

 

And within the context of Brexit? Is the public perception of its' success, (one of) a suitable set of criteria by which to judge it?

 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, if you took all the money from the top 10% and gave it to the bottom 90%, a poll showing wide public support would prove it was a successful program? 

 

 

 

On its' own, no. But it might be one of a set of criterion.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

So what point are you trying to make?

That the public's perception of how successful something as complex as Brexit is largely unrelate to how successful it actually is. 

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

And within the context of Brexit? Is the public perception of its' success, (one of) a suitable set of criteria by which to judge it?

One of, sure. 

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

On its' own, no. But it might be one of a set of criterion.

Sure, but you said: "...Note: I am suggesting that it is the only criterion...". Did you want to want to walk that back?