Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Earthworm Jim]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/test-and-trace-demanded-for-those-still-infected-with-brexit-enthusiasm-20200702198050

[Hockey_saint]

13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Anyone with a slight knowledge of Americans will know the words were drafted for him. Queue is the clue, it would have been line, had a American written them. 
 

The best analysis I heard was that Biden won’t insist on Agriculture being a major part of any deal, unlike Trump. But that Ireland will be an issue if he wins. If the general consensus  is Boris has stitched up the Irish, they’ll struggle to get a deal with Biden. 

My opinion, for what it’s worth, is domestically it’ll be better to deal with a Biden White House. Trump could propose the greatest free trade deal known to man, that’ll benefit the UK taxpayers like no other, and the soft arsed remoaners will still kick up a fuss and cry about it. Trump deranged syndrome, is as widespread as Boris deranged syndrome. 

Yeah, you're probably right.

[Wes Tender]

55 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Anyone with a slight knowledge of Americans will know the words were drafted for him. Queue is the clue, it would have been line, had a American written them. 
 

The best analysis I heard was that Biden won’t insist on Agriculture being a major part of any deal, unlike Trump. But that Ireland will be an issue if he wins. If the general consensus  is Boris has stitched up the Irish, they’ll struggle to get a deal with Biden. 

My opinion, for what it’s worth, is domestically it’ll be better to deal with a Biden White House. Trump could propose the greatest free trade deal known to man, that’ll benefit the UK taxpayers like no other, and the soft arsed remoaners will still kick up a fuss and cry about it. Trump deranged syndrome, is as widespread as Boris deranged syndrome. 

Yes, of course it was a put up job. Cameron asked Obama to do him a favour and tell the remoaner establishment media to publish a nice little project fear story that we would be at the back of the queue when it came to the question of a UK/USA trade deal. Obama asked what a queue was, and Cameron told him it was the same as a "line", but that he had better say "queue" so that we would understand what he was talking about. Obama duly obliged, and added a nice few percent to the leave vote, when people were incensed that Obama was interfering in our referendum.

But quite why Hockey wants to rake over old coals like this is a mystery to me. The dynamics of why Obama got involved on behalf of Cameron are now ancient history, as are the two of them. It failed to secure a remain vote, we have now left the EU, and are negotiating our trade deals as a sovereign independent nation. As we do more trade with the USA than with any other single country, it makes sense to both parties to do a FTA together, whoever becomes the next president

Edited 2 July, 2020 by Wes Tender

[Hockey_saint]

Just now, Wes Tender said:

Yes, of course it was a put up job. Cameron asked Obama to do him a favour and tell the remoaner establishment media to publish a nice little project fear story that we would be at the back of the queue when it came to the question of a UK/USA trade deal. Obama asked what a queue was, and Cameron told him it was the same as a "line", but that he had better say "queue" so that we would understand what he was talking about. Obama duly obliged, and added a nice few percent to the leave vote, when people were incensed that Obama was interfering in our referendum.

But quite why Hockey wants to rake over old coals like this is a mystery to me. The dynamics of why Obama got involved on behalf of Cameron are now ancient history, as are the two of them. It failed to secure a remain vote, we have now left the EU, and are negotiating our trade deals as a sovereign independent nation. As we do more trade with the USA than with any other single country, it makes sense to both parties to do a FTA together.

Anyone who still uses the term "project fear" is seriously delusional.

[Wes Tender]

Just now, Hockey_saint said:

Anyone who still uses the term "project fear" is seriously delusional.

What would you call it?

[Hockey_saint]

8 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

What would you call it?

What the rest of the world (Donald Trump and his friends excluded) calls the truth. The only people stoking up fears were those people posting up posters of queues of migrants whilst aiming to remove our right to live and work on the biggest federation on the planet...yet you call the other side "project fear"? crazy.

 

You want to leave, others want to remain.....fear and lies were stoked from both sides so probably not best to keep shouting "project fear" especially since it was dreamed up by that coke-snorting nutjob Michael Gove

Edited 2 July, 2020 by Hockey_saint

[aintforever]

Wasn't border checks between different parts of the UK project fear?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53018020

[Hockey_saint]

16 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Wasn't border checks between different parts of the UK project fear?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53018020

What? Did you think the EU wouldn't want to put checks in place on us? Crazy.

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Wasn't border checks between different parts of the UK project fear?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53018020

"Firms are expected to have to fill in 200 million extra customs declarations every year and industry experts have said an extra 50,000 customs officials will need to be hired to deal with the extra paperwork." 

 

50,000 extra customs officials. Average salary c£34,300 apparently - plus pension, NI and office / support costs - say £46,000pa. How much for business to get the info and then fill in a customs declaration and submit? got to be £10 at absolute bare minimum x 200 million.   

Ooh look an extra £4.3bn pa on additional bureaucracy. Then there is the waiting time for lorries at ports.  Brought to you by the Tories - the party for business, low tax and efficiency.

Edited 2 July, 2020 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

1 hour ago, Hockey_saint said:

What the rest of the world (Donald Trump and his friends excluded) calls the truth. The only people stoking up fears were those people posting up posters of queues of migrants whilst aiming to remove our right to live and work on the biggest federation on the planet...yet you call the other side "project fear"? crazy.

 

You want to leave, others want to remain.....fear and lies were stoked from both sides so probably not best to keep shouting "project fear" especially since it was dreamed up by that coke-snorting nutjob Michael Gove

Oh dear, over four years later and you're still really so peeved that you contradict yourself in the space of two short paragraphs. First project fear was the truth and then you admit that both sides told lies.

A bit of genius from Gove, that, eh? You know what topics it referred to, as did most of the electorate. By the simple expedient of labelling any depressing forecasts about the negative consequences of Brexit as project fear, the effects of the weapon were blunted. When it came to slick marketing of the campaign and memorable, pithy slogans, the leave campaign was streets ahead of the remain one, who were supposed to be the brainy ones.

Anyway, all water long since under the bridge. Move on, it's not doing you any good mentally lingering over it.

[Hockey_saint]

17 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

Oh dear, over four years later and you're still really so peeved that you contradict yourself in the space of two short paragraphs. First project fear was the truth and then you admit that both sides told lies.

A bit of genius from Gove, that, eh? You know what topics it referred to, as did most of the electorate. By the simple expedient of labelling any depressing forecasts about the negative consequences of Brexit as project fear, the effects of the weapon were blunted. When it came to slick marketing of the campaign and memorable, pithy slogans, the leave campaign was streets ahead of the remain one, who were supposed to be the brainy ones.

Anyway, all water long since under the bridge. Move on, it's not doing you any good mentally lingering over it.

Michael Gove a genius? did he pass you some of his drugs?

[Wes Tender]

Getting back to the current situation regarding the trade negotiations with the EU, rather than raking over old coals from 4 years back, it is very telling how things are going when the talks have to finish a full day earlier than planned. Frost keeps on telling Barnier that we will not shift our position on ECJ jurisdiction, control of our own territorial waters and who can fish them, and our refusal to be tied to their level playing field rules, but Barnier appears to have cloth ears. Like a stuck record, he then disparages us for being unreasonable in our uncompromising stance, not seeming to recognise that we told him on numerous occasions that we will not accept any changes to those red lines. Sooner or later, it will become clear that we mean what we say, and that therefore either they drop those demands, or there is going to be no deal. Next week, it is their turn to come to London to resume the talks, but I am not expecting any developments again, if neither side is prepared to budge an inch from their position - and we won't.

[John B]

On 02/07/2020 at 18:13, Wes Tender said:

Oh dear, over four years later and you're still really so peeved that you contradict yourself in the space of two short paragraphs. First project fear was the truth and then you admit that both sides told lies.

A bit of genius from Gove, that, eh? You know what topics it referred to, as did most of the electorate. By the simple expedient of labelling any depressing forecasts about the negative consequences of Brexit as project fear, the effects of the weapon were blunted. When it came to slick marketing of the campaign and memorable, pithy slogans, the leave campaign was streets ahead of the remain one, who were supposed to be the brainy ones.

Anyway, all water long since under the bridge. Move on, it's not doing you any good mentally lingering over it.

The so called slogans were lies easily believed by ignorant bigots and racists

 

 

[Wes Tender]

1 hour ago, John B said:

The so called slogans were lies easily believed by ignorant bigots and racists.

 

 

As I said to Hockey, it is over four years ago, you lot lost, we've left the EU, move on with your lives. Everybody knows that remoaners believe that anybody who voted to leave is either thick, a racist, or both, yet this is the majority of your fellow citizens who voted in the referendum. What a parlous situation, eh?

[ecuk268]

1 hour ago, Wes Tender said:

As I said to Hockey, it is over four years ago, you lot lost, we've left the EU, move on with your lives. Everybody knows that remoaners believe that anybody who voted to leave is either thick, a racist, or both, yet this is the majority of your fellow citizens who voted in the referendum. What a parlous situation, eh?

if you plot out the percentage of voters who voted leave, there it shows that leavers were older and had lower educational qualifications. 

68% of voters who were graduates voted remain whereas 70% of those with GCSE or lower voted leave. Those with A-levels were evenly split.

Of the 30 areas with the fewest graduates in the UK, 28 backed Brexit. 29 out of the 30 areas with the most graduates voted Remain.

I wouldn't call anyone "thick" but the pattern is clear.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

if you plot out the percentage of voters who voted leave, there it shows that leavers were older and had lower educational qualifications. 

68% of voters who were graduates voted remain whereas 70% of those with GCSE or lower voted leave. Those with A-levels were evenly split.

Of the 30 areas with the fewest graduates in the UK, 28 backed Brexit. 29 out of the 30 areas with the most graduates voted Remain.

I wouldn't call anyone "thick" but the pattern is clear.

When I went to school only about 10% of students went to university. Now it’s nearer 50%. You seem to imply that the only way to measure intelligence is via qualifications. This is complete nonsense. Both my father & my father in law left school at 15 but were highly successful & intelligent businessmen. My Father in law made a lot of money in 2 different industries, despite having fuck all qualifications (making him thick, by your measure). My son went to Grammar school, so had highly educated mates. I’d put my Father in law way way above my sons mates who graduated, in terms of knowledge, life experiences and natural intelligence. 
 

When it comes to the EU, surely people who have experienced The UK in and out of the EU/Common Market have a better insight than a 25 year old graduate teacher. What was the breakdown of these people when it came to their votes? 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, ecuk268 said:

I wouldn't call anyone "thick" but the pattern is clear.

I wouldn't call anyone 'thick' either but paying over £30k to get a degree in 'Disney' studies and work in a dead end job in retail or hospitality doesn't exactly warrant a place in the intelligentsia!

Edited 12 July, 2020 by Weston Super Saint

[Wes Tender]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

When I went to school only about 10% of students went to university. Now it’s nearer 50%. You seem to imply that the only way to measure intelligence is via qualifications. This is complete nonsense. Both my father & my father in law left school at 15 but were highly successful & intelligent businessmen. My Father in law made a lot of money in 2 different industries, despite having fuck all qualifications (making him thick, by your measure). My son went to Grammar school, so had highly educated mates. I’d put my Father in law way way above my sons mates who graduated, in terms of knowledge, life experiences and natural intelligence. 
 

When it comes to the EU, surely people who have experienced The UK in and out of the EU/Common Market have a better insight than a 25 year old graduate teacher. What was the breakdown of these people when it came to their votes? 

You saved me the bother of raking over these old coals. When only 10% went to university, a degree meant something. Nowadays, it a vastly devalued commodity and it is arguable that somebody with good A levels will have a distinct advantage in their career prospects by taking a job then, and gaining valuable work experience during the three years that their mates will have spent in university, racking up massive debts for their useless degrees, the ones held by thousands of others looking for work.

So who among the remoaners is going to be next whining about how unfair the referendum result was over four years ago, and how it was won by thick racists?

[ecuk268]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

When I went to school only about 10% of students went to university. Now it’s nearer 50%. You seem to imply that the only way to measure intelligence is via qualifications. This is complete nonsense. Both my father & my father in law left school at 15 but were highly successful & intelligent businessmen. My Father in law made a lot of money in 2 different industries, despite having fuck all qualifications (making him thick, by your measure). My son went to Grammar school, so had highly educated mates. I’d put my Father in law way way above my sons mates who graduated, in terms of knowledge, life experiences and natural intelligence. 
 

When it comes to the EU, surely people who have experienced The UK in and out of the EU/Common Market have a better insight than a 25 year old graduate teacher. What was the breakdown of these people when it came to their votes? 

You seem a trifle sensitive regarding educational achievement.

Where did I call anyone thick? 

How do you measure intelligence? Is it IQ score? We could start a new thread on that.

I wouldn't necessarily equate making money with intelligence (Donald Trump).

I just pointed out the statistical reality. 

[Weston Super Saint]

14 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

How do you measure intelligence? Is it IQ score? We could start a new thread on that.

 

That's the generally accepted measurement, yes.

You don't need a degree to score well in an IQ test though - a guy who used to work for me in Blackpool used to score very highly, enough to qualify for Mensa, he only passed four GCSEs.

[shurlock]

 

1 hour ago, Wes Tender said:

You saved me the bother of raking over these old coals. When only 10% went to university, a degree meant something. Nowadays, it a vastly devalued commodity and it is arguable that somebody with good A levels will have a distinct advantage in their career prospects by taking a job then, and gaining valuable work experience during the three years that their mates will have spent in university, racking up massive debts for their useless degrees, the ones held by thousands of others looking for work.

So who among the remoaners is going to be next whining about how unfair the referendum result was over four years ago, and how it was won by thick racists?

 

Les - there's an easy way to address that alleged 'bias' and look only at the voting behaviour of the older population with a degree -when degrees supposedly meant something. Guess what the remain/leave split was among those over 55  (at the time of the referendum) with a degree.

You'll find your argument is bunkum.

 

Edited 12 July, 2020 by shurlock

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That's the generally accepted measurement, yes.

 

Not amongst remoaners it’s not. Intelligence is measured by whether you voted remain or not. 
 

He seems to ignore the fact that people who experienced the country outside of the EU/Common market and inside it, rejected it. 
 

Anyway, it’s irrelevant now. We’ve won and we’re leaving. 

[shurlock]

13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Not amongst remoaners it’s not. Intelligence is measured by whether you voted remain or not. 
 

He seems to ignore the fact that people who experienced the country outside of the EU/Common market and inside it, rejected it. 
 

Anyway, it’s irrelevant now. We’ve won and we’re leaving. 

You're not doing much to dispel the thicko tag pal. 

Edited 12 July, 2020 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

24 minutes ago, shurlock said:

 Guess what the remain/leave split was among those over 55  (at the time of the referendum) with a degree.

 

 

No idea - doesn't look like the YouGov data breaks it down that far, it does it by age, sex or degree status but doesn't combine age and degree status.

I'm sure you have a handy link though...

[ecuk268]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 You seem to imply that the only way to measure intelligence is via qualifications. This is complete nonsense. Both my father & my father in law left school at 15 but were highly successful & intelligent businessmen. My Father in law made a lot of money in 2 different industries, despite having fuck all qualifications (making him thick, by your measure). My son went to Grammar school, so had highly educated mates. I’d put my Father in law way way above my sons mates who graduated, in terms of knowledge, life experiences and natural intelligence. 
 

Where did I imply that? How do you define "natural Intelligence"?

 

 

[shurlock]

17 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

No idea - doesn't look like the YouGov data breaks it down that far, it does it by age, sex or degree status but doesn't combine age and degree status.

I'm sure you have a handy link though...

It was 70:30 in favour of remain - see NatCen's British Social Attitudes 34.

Edited 12 July, 2020 by shurlock

[Lord Duckhunter]

Being able to reply on a forum without your words appearing in a quote, is one sign of intelligence. 

Edited 12 July, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[Weston Super Saint]

33 minutes ago, shurlock said:

It was 70:30 in favour of remain - see NatCen's British Social Attitudes 34.

Cheers.  It can be found here : https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39149/bsa34_brexit_final.pdf  table 4 is the relevant table.

However, it does take pains to point out that it is 'educational attainment'.  Also, looking at the 'bases' for table 4 in the Appendix on page 23, the sample size of those 'polled' does seem extaordinarily small - 83 people aged over 55 with a degree.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Cheers.  It can be found here : https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39149/bsa34_brexit_final.pdf  table 4 is the relevant table.

However, it does take pains to point out that it is 'educational attainment'.  Also, looking at the 'bases' for table 4 in the Appendix on page 23, the sample size of those 'polled' does seem extaordinarily small - 83 people aged over 55 with a degree.

That's a perfectly acceptable sample size when producing supporting evidence for a beauty/grooming product in a TV advert.

[Weston Super Saint]

13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

That's a perfectly acceptable sample size when producing supporting evidence for a beauty/grooming product in a TV advert.

Especially when the entire sample have been given the product for free

[shurlock]

39 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Cheers.  It can be found here : https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39149/bsa34_brexit_final.pdf  table 4 is the relevant table.

However, it does take pains to point out that it is 'educational attainment'.  Also, looking at the 'bases' for table 4 in the Appendix on page 23, the sample size of those 'polled' does seem extaordinarily small - 83 people aged over 55 with a degree.

I said degree, so its consistent with my statement. As for survey design/sample size, please do not wade into a subject you know nothing about pal.

Edited 12 July, 2020 by shurlock

[shurlock]

45 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

That's a perfectly acceptable sample size when producing supporting evidence for a beauty/grooming product in a TV advert.

Not sure what your cute little point is - either way, its splendidly uninformed. 

Edited 12 July, 2020 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

2 hours ago, shurlock said:

Les - there's an easy way to address that alleged 'bias' and look only at the voting behaviour of the older population with a degree -when degrees supposedly meant something. Guess what the remain/leave split was among those over 55  (at the time of the referendum) with a degree.

You'll find your argument is bunkum.

 

You can indulge yourself fantasising about how extraordinarily clever you are with your statistics selectively proving what you want them to, if your ego needs to have its daily massage from besting we lesser mortals (to your mind). The fact remains, that regardless of what statistical analysis you remoaners provide to infer that the remoaner vote was comprised more of those with a younger demographic and with a higher level of modern educational qualifications, (but a lower level of life experience), all of this is irrelevant. It isn't going to change the result, nor is it going to change the fact that we have left the EU.

Surely you must recognise that arguing about things that are now history that you cannot alter is a puerile exercise, and it makes you look a bit pathetic going on about it. I say again, move on.

[ecuk268]

10 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

You can indulge yourself fantasising about how extraordinarily clever you are with your statistics selectively proving what you want them to, if your ego needs to have its daily massage from besting we lesser mortals (to your mind). The fact remains, that regardless of what statistical analysis you remoaners provide to infer that the remoaner vote was comprised more of those with a younger demographic and with a higher level of modern educational qualifications, (but a lower level of life experience), all of this is irrelevant. It isn't going to change the result, nor is it going to change the fact that we have left the EU.

Surely you must recognise that arguing about things that are now history that you cannot alter is a puerile exercise, and it makes you look a bit pathetic going on about it. I say again, move on.

It's nothing to do with changing the result. It's a statistical analysis of the voting pattern.

If you have any evidence that disproves it, kindly let us know.

[badgerx16]

39 minutes ago, shurlock said:

Not sure what your cute little point is - either way, its splendidly uninformed. 

Obviously you don't read the small print at the bottom of the screen during shampoo or wrinkle cream ads.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/aug/18/advertising.science

Edited 12 July, 2020 by badgerx16

[shurlock]

22 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Obviously you don't read the small print at the bottom of the screen during shampoo or wrinkle cream ads.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/aug/18/advertising.science

Maybe you should write to John Curtice and the statisticians at the NatCen and let me them know of your concerns. Definitely enclose the article link too pal.

You can contact them here.

https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/about/funding.aspx

Edited 12 July, 2020 by shurlock

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, shurlock said:

Maybe you should write to John Curtice and the statisticians at the NatCen and let me them know of your concerns. Definitely enclose the article link too pal.

You can contact them here.

https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/about/funding.aspx

I'm beginning to think that GM and Wes might be right in their views of you as smug and condescending.

 

( EDIT: -

PAL ! )

Edited 12 July, 2020 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

56 minutes ago, shurlock said:

I said degree, so its consistent with my statement. As for survey design/sample size, please do not wade into a subject you know nothing about pal.

I've never said you didn't, nor have I claimed it isn't consistent with your statement.  I merely included that because of the wider debate that has been running in the posts previous to yours about 'Intelligence' and that 'education' isn't necessarily a guarantee of intelligence.

You have, however, stated that Wes's argument is 'bunkum' and claimed that the 'easy way to address that alleged 'bias' and look only at the voting behaviour of the older population with a degree'.  You've further stated that the unequivocal fact is that 70% of over 55's with a degree, voted to remain.  You've cited a source for this which states in its own appendix that the 'base' used for sampling was a mere 83 people that fit this criteria.  I would wager that there are a lot more than 83 people over the age of 55 that have a degree and voted in the referendum, therefore the sample size used in your cited source is simply not big enough for you to claim unequivocally that 70% of over 55s with a degree voted to remain.

2 hours ago, shurlock said:

 

 

Les - there's an easy way to address that alleged 'bias' and look only at the voting behaviour of the older population with a degree -when degrees supposedly meant something. Guess what the remain/leave split was among those over 55  (at the time of the referendum) with a degree.

You'll find your argument is bunkum.

 

Once again, you've claimed that I am clearly stupid for wading into a subject that I know nothing about, when it's pretty clear you are the one who has cited a source without bothering to check any of the facts about how the information was gathered.  As ever, I will be only too pleased if you can further dazzle me with your undoubted brilliance which proves your claim.

So far, you have failed to look 'only at the voting behaviour of the older population with a degree' but have instead looked at the voting behaviour of an insignificantly small proportion of the older population with a degree.  

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

I'm beginning to think that GM and Wes might be right in their views of you as smug and condescending.

Don't forget narcissistic!

[Weston Super Saint]

6 minutes ago, shurlock said:

Maybe you should write to John Curtice and the statisticians at the NatCen and let me them know of your concerns. Definitely enclose the article link too pal.

You can contact them here.

https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/about/funding.aspx

Proof, if ever it was needed, that education is NOT evidence of intelligence...

[trousers]

So, the lesson we've learned in Saintswebland today is that some of the electorate are cleverer than others...

Fingers crossed the conundrum of whether or not the Pope is Catholic is high up on the list of revelations to cover next

[shurlock]

20 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I've never said you didn't, nor have I claimed it isn't consistent with your statement.  I merely included that because of the wider debate that has been running in the posts previous to yours about 'Intelligence' and that 'education' isn't necessarily a guarantee of intelligence.

You have, however, stated that Wes's argument is 'bunkum' and claimed that the 'easy way to address that alleged 'bias' and look only at the voting behaviour of the older population with a degree'.  You've further stated that the unequivocal fact is that 70% of over 55's with a degree, voted to remain.  You've cited a source for this which states in its own appendix that the 'base' used for sampling was a mere 83 people that fit this criteria.  I would wager that there are a lot more than 83 people over the age of 55 that have a degree and voted in the referendum, therefore the sample size used in your cited source is simply not big enough for you to claim unequivocally that 70% of over 55s with a degree voted to remain.

Once again, you've claimed that I am clearly stupid for wading into a subject that I know nothing about, when it's pretty clear you are the one who has cited a source without bothering to check any of the facts about how the information was gathered.  As ever, I will be only too pleased if you can further dazzle me with your undoubted brilliance which proves your claim.

So far, you have failed to look 'only at the voting behaviour of the older population with a degree' but have instead looked at the voting behaviour of an insignificantly small proportion of the older population with a degree.  

 

Leaving aside the words you're putting into my mouth, the BSA is one of the most respected longitudinal surveys in the country, using state-of-the-art random sampling procedures. They're much more rigorous than yougov and other polling organisations. I can assure you they will have gone to excruciating lengths, as serious survey statisticians do, to ensure that the sample was as representative as possible of the underlying population at hand  -so that they could make robust, generalisable statements. Charge me as guilty if I accept and reproduce their statements over an epically thick bumpkin who plays the favourite SWF card of claiming a small sample -in the process displaying their ignorance of statistics and the subject matter (spoiler: truly random sampling lets you do alot with a very small sample with acceptable confidence levels and intervals  -needless to say its a huge and complex area of study). 

You really are living proof of the old Dunning-Kruger effect. Ignorance must be truly bliss. 

 

Edited 13 July, 2020 by shurlock

[shurlock]

edit

Edited 12 July, 2020 by shurlock

[ecuk268]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Being able to reply on a forum without your words appearing in a quote, is one sign of intelligence. 

How do you work that one out?

 

Edited 12 July, 2020 by ecuk268

[Weston Super Saint]

11 hours ago, shurlock said:

Leaving aside the words you're putting into my mouth, the BSA is one of the most respected longitudinal surveys in the country, using state-of-the-art random sampling procedures. They're much more rigorous than yougov and other polling organisations. I can assure you they will have gone to excruciating lengths, as serious survey statisticians do, to ensure that the sample was as representative as possible of the underlying population at hand  -so that they could make robust, generalisable statements. Charge me as guilty if I accept and reproduce their statements over an epically thick bumpkin who plays the favourite SWF card of claiming a small sample -in the process displaying their ignorance of statistics and the subject matter (spoiler: truly random sampling lets you do alot with very little -needless to say its a huge and complex area of study). 

You really are living proof of the old Dunning-Kruger effect. Ignorance must be truly bliss. 

 

#classicshurlie  Quoting your previous posts, isn't 'putting words in your mouth', it is simply 'replicating' your words.

Even Pointless and Family Fortunes use a 'sample size' of 100 people.

Dunning-Kruger, LOL, which one of us goes to excruciating lenghts to constantly claim everyone else is 'thick' - happy to let the 'audience' decide...

Edited 13 July, 2020 by Weston Super Saint

[John B]

21 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

As I said to Hockey, it is over four years ago, you lot lost, we've left the EU, move on with your lives. Everybody knows that remoaners believe that anybody who voted to leave is either thick, a racist, or both, yet this is the majority of your fellow citizens who voted in the referendum. What a parlous situation, eh?

At its heart Brexit is a xenophobic project, where liars and cheats preyed on the false narrative that foreigners were taking British sovereignty and jobs. When the jobs are gone they won't come back, and not a single thing of good will come in return.

[Wes Tender]

So what we have here, is Gavyn furiously defending a small sample survey statistician on a subject over four years old, when the only poll that counts for anything serious was the one, on 23rd June 2016. Did his favourite survey team do a poll forecast of what the result would be before the event? What did it conclude?

What does he hope to achieve by hammering on about how thick and racist the Brexit voters were/are, when there is nothing that he or any other remoaner can change? One must conclude that his only purpose is to demonstrate how super-intelligent he is, and how grateful we must be to have such a towering intellect here to educate the thick masses on this humble football forum. We know what he thinks of anybody who has an opposing view to his, because he is never slow to point out our deficiencies. We are thick, out of our depth, country bumpkins, unable to process data too complex for our feeble minds, etc. Classic narcissism.

Carry droning on and on about long past events, Gavyn. As I said, it is just making you look pathetic.

Edited 13 July, 2020 by Wes Tender

[Wes Tender]

5 minutes ago, John B said:

At its heart Brexit is a xenophobic project, where liars and cheats preyed on the false narrative that foreigners were taking British sovereignty and jobs. When the jobs are gone they won't come back, and not a single thing of good will come in return.

It really can't be anything else but a xenophobic exercise, when we leave an arrangement allowing immigrants to come here from around Europe and replace it with allowing immigration from all around the world, can it?  🙄 As for your final sentence,  of course you cannot know that. Let's wait and see, shall we.

[John B]

2 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

So what we have here, is Gavyn furiously defending a small sample survey statistician on a subject over four years old, when the only poll that counts for anything serious, was the one, on 23rd June 2016. Did his favourite survey team do a poll forecast of what the result would be before the event? What did it conclude?

What does he hope to achieve by hammering on about how thick and racist the Brexit voters were/are, when there is nothing that he or any other remoaner can change? One must conclude that his only purpose is to demonstrate how super-intelligent he is, and how grateful we must be to have such a towering intellect here to educate the thick masses on this humble football forum. We know what he thinks of anybody who has an opposing view to his, because he is never slow to point out our deficiencies. We are thick, out of our depth, country bumpkins, unable to process data too complex for our feeble minds, etc. Classic narcissism.

Carry droning on and on, Gavyn. As I said, it is just making you look pathetic.

 

Brexit is the biggest and most absurd waste of money in history, splurging £ billions to make Britain poorer.

At some point I hope that there will be some recognition that all of the people who said that leaving the EU would mean additional cost and bureaucracy for businesses were right and those who spent the past years peddling fantastical solutions that don’t exist were not.

 

 

[Wes Tender]

1 minute ago, John B said:

 

Brexit is the biggest and most absurd waste of money in history, splurging £ billions to make Britain poorer.

At some point I hope that there will be some recognition that all of the people who said that leaving the EU would mean additional cost and bureaucracy for businesses were right and those who spent the past years peddling fantastical solutions that don’t exist were not.

 

 

Well, as I just suggested a few seconds ago, why don't we just wait and see, eh?