Eligible to Vote - Will Vote 'IN' ('Remain')
Eligible to Vote - Will Vote 'OUT'
Eligible to Vote - Undecided
Ineligible to Vote - Would Vote 'IN' ('Remain') If I could
Ineligible to Vote - Would Vote 'OUT' if I could.
Ineligible to Vote - Would be undecided right now.
Whatever happens, I think that logically we are done with Farage. Which ever way it pans out I expect he will either want to take the credit for an exit despite I think for most people just being an annoyance and expect to have a hand in a post Europe Britain, or will campaign on under some lame excuse.Originally Posted by Stringent
Out of interest, what do you think the remain campaign has said or done that has been, in your opinion, 'disgracefully deceitful'? As for the manipulative accusation, what political debate isn't?
Brexit causing WW3 for one. We will be "£4300 richer in 2030 if we stay in" being another.
Some of the more lurid doomsday economic projections, whilst founded on reasonable assumptions, are based on the worst case of a worst case etc. Thus pushing the limits of statistical analysis to a point whereby the stated outcome is about as likely as being hit by lightning. So saying "if we leave this will happen" is deceitful in that it misrepresents the data. Both sides have been guilty of this, but in many respects certain members of the Remain camp have been the worst culprits.
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
I don't think we can rate one side as being more deceitful than the other, unless someone has the time to do an analysis, putting aside personal opinions one things for sure, some politicians have once again done serious damage to the public's trust of them.
Do you have a reference for anyone on the remain side claiming that Brexit will cause WW3, because i've not heard that one? As for the 4300 figure, that is no different to any economic prediction made in the lead up to any vote; They take the best/worst prediction, depending on what suits them, and use that figure. If that is 'disgracefully decieftful, then so is every party in the run up to every General Election. What's the big deal with this one?
On one hand, you say they are 'based on reasonable assumptions', and then complain that the remain camp are campaigning on the worst case scenario. What are they supposed to do, campaign on the best case? If they feel that the worst case scenario is a possibility, then that is what they should campaign on. That's not 'disgracefully deceitful', that's just common sense. And it's exactly with that premise that a lot of the Brexit supporters on this forum support maintaining Trident.
As for the 'This will happen', whilst the figures used may be open to debate, virtually every Economist has stated that they believe there will be a detrimental effect both in the short and long term to the British economy in the event of a Brexit vote. So the remain camp say if we leave it will be economically bad, the Brexit camp say if we leave it won't be bad (and maybe even good) and the people whose job it is to predict these things say if we leave it will be bad, but it is Remain who are the worst culprits. Righto.
I would still like for there to be an option to vote Undecided (or even neither) on the ballot paper and to have that view counted. Ps. Not voting nor defacing the ballot paper is not the same thing.
I'm going to assume that you didn't understand what I meant and use an example.
I run an analysis based on various sensible assumptions. However, it is a complicated model so it has to run in stages whereby the first result is plugged into the next and so on.
Stage 1 - result = 10 with a std deviation of 2, likely range 6 - 14
Stage 2 - Using 14 I now get a result of 150 with a std dev of 5, range = 140 - 160
Stage 3 - Using 160 I now get a result of 3500 with a std deviation of 100, range = 3400 - 3600
I then categorically state that the answer is 3600.
At stages 2 and 3 I have used what is a statistically possible yet significantly less likely outcome. Essentially saying that if I roll 3 dice I'll get an 18, rather than the more likely 12-14 result. I've then compounded that further by saying that id I roll the dice again I'll get another 18, which is even less likely.
Furthermore had I chosen the middle of the range at each point I would have reached an answer of 2250 with a range of 50, i.e. 2200 - 2300.
Technically my result of 3600 is possible. However, stating that it is the real result is disingenuous.
So taking the worst case of a worst case of a worst case etc. and then saying "this is what WILL happen" is deceitful. If they'd said "there is a small possibility that this could happen" then there wouldn't be a problem. However, as always (and with both sides) they abused the maths to breaking point. It's the same crap that some of the Environmental lobbies pulled with the climate data.
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
the chances most certainly are not zero. slim perhaps. slim for the foreseeable future, hopefully
getting 27 or more countries to unanimously vote us back in after we've left, is going to be considerably harder and less likely, particularly in view of the leave campaigns statements which aren't going to fill the other countries with delight
I keep seeing people banging on about Europe becoming a federation and having an army, being forced to adopt the euro blah blah blah.
I'm sorry but for anything like that to happen it would take all member states to agree. If something like that was forced upon us, we wouldn't be the only ones crying out to leave, the whole thing would come crashing down.
Today is one vote, it's not a vote to sign our country away and plummet into the control of the fourth Reich, for heaven's sake.
If we remain, and need to vote to leave again in the future, we can. Suggesting differently is just utter FUD.
I understood exactly what you said, but it's an economic forecast, and as such it's supposed to be treated as any other forecast is; with a degree of scepticism. When they gave the 4300 per household figure, you didn't actually think they meant every single household in the UK would be exactly 4300 quid worse off did you? The 6% they used to describe by how much the economy would shrink by in the event of a Brexit (and where they got the 4300 figure from) was not worse case scenario at all. In fact, it was roughly in line with most forecasts and independent analysis, and conservative compared to others. The actual text of the analysis says 'Based on the Treasury’s estimates, our GDP would be 6.2% lower, families would be £4,300 worse off'. The economy shrinking by 6% is not as you say a 'small possibility', but rather consistent with most estimates. So unless you know something that all the economists that came to roughly the same figures used by the Treasury don't (and if you do, I'd be interested to hear it), then I can only assume your assertion that the Remain camp is using 'deceitful tactics', and 'abusing maths to breaking point', is little more than hyperbole.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole financial argument based on assumptions and hypotheses that cannot be substantiated as there is no quantifiable data on which to compare them? While I agree that the majority of economists are siding with the government & bank of England, they have all got it horrendously wrong many times before. As a result the warnings fall on many deaf ears and many people are naturally skeptical. So to base your vote solely on unsubstantiated, unquantifiable claims is quite frankly impossible for many of us.
[citation needed]?
Whilst undoubtedly economists have been wrong in the past, I'd be amazed if you could cite an example where an overwhelming majority of economists agreed on a likely trajectory that turned out to be completely wrong. In fact, I'd be amazed if there was any economic inflection point that received the breadth and depth of attention that Brexit has - it's very rare for people to be aware of these kind of inflection points so far in advance - they generally come as a response to a sudden change. So it's been an unusual opportunity for economists to model the outcomes of a major economic change well in advance of that change.
Let's be clear - I completely accept that the forecasts could be wrong. No question. Then again, If I blindfolded myself and then biked down Mottram Hill I might not crash into anything. But there's no way I can know the outcome. So if I have 9 friends who tell me that I'm likely to do varying amounts of damage to myself and my bike, and one friend who tells me I'll be absolutely fine and get cookies at the end, who should I listen to?
All forecasts can be wrong. That doesn't mean you should just ignore all forecasts, particularly if the vast majority of them point to similar outcomes.
big_hairy_rob (23-06-2016)
It's correct that there is no quantifiable data, but presumably Economists can (and have) study what has happened in the event of transitions. They would also be able to see what happens when countries leave trading blocks. To stop immigration, we would need to leave the Common Market, and there are quantifiable numbers attached to that that will certainly be affected, at the very least in the short term. That's why I specifically said that although the figures may be argued about, the general consensus that the economy will take a hit in the wake of a Brexit vote is sound – Transition on the scale we would see rarely brings about anything other than that. UK post Brexit might well confound the naysayers and be the one exception to this, but the Economists whose job it is to try and forecast, and the Governments would be derelict in their duty if they didn't say what they predict would happen.
big_hairy_rob (23-06-2016)
In all honesty I cannot remember the precise details, i.e. which figures, were I discussed amongst a great many other things about the referendum in a long conversation several weeks ago. However, I do remember that this person who is (a) a respected economist in the civil service, (b) trustworthy (c) a stickler for accuracy and (d) voting remain was decidedly irked by the fact that they were stretching the boundaries of possibility to make their point.
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
Financial forecasts, like most forecasts, are based on mathematical models, in the case of financial forecasts the mathematics is based on historic statistics.
A very simple way of looking at it is, for example, if you have enough data points on what happens to X when Y goes up by 1% you can make start to make predictions of what's going to happen to X in the future if Y changes, obviously a countries economy is far more complicated than that but (afaik) that's the basic principal.
big_hairy_rob (23-06-2016)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
