57/43 is not good for Remain in London. Additionally we don't know what kind of turnout filter YouGov are using, they say that half of young people won't bother to vote and they are the group most on favour of remaining.
We know that YouGov are not using a turnout filter (unless they have changed their methodology in this poll). They ask about turnout, but they don't apply the results to the headline figures. If they did apply one, their results would be consistently better for Leave in all their polling. There is more need for a turnout filter in London, because the demographics of the London population is younger, and hence the answer to the question of whether young people will potentially affect the polling more.
The only warning that I would apply to that is that with a turnout filter the YouGov results would then be consistently better for Leave than those of other polling firms generally, so it does come down to which polling company's methodology you trust more generally.
Well we will have to wait for the tables to come out, I remember doing an exercise before the GE last year where you could recalculate a YouGov poll based on who actually voted in the 2010 election rather than people who said they would vote in 2015. YouGov's headline showed the race to be a dead heat while my calculation put the Tories ahead by between 2 and 4 points consistently. People who have previously voted are the most likely to vote again.
"Now I don't know what it always was with us We chose the words, and yeah, we drew the lines There was just no way this house could hold the two of us I guess that we were just too much of the same kind
Well say goodbye it's Independence Day It's Independence Day all boys must run away"
As is known, I'm likely to vote Leave so I'm not a neutral, but I'm surprised the Little England phrase is being used.
Scotland and Northern Ireland are likely to vote Remain, as is London. Parts of England will be firmly Leave, but surely the largest pool of swing voters are in England, and belittling England is hardly likely to either persuade them or convince them the PM has England's interests at heart.
I see Rob Hayward is calling it for leave. No idea of his credentials but apparently he was quite good with the GE result last year.
I think a narrow Leave vote and an exit into the EEA, via Parliament vote, may now be a 40% shot.
Yes, I think that is what we are realistically looking at, but I think there will need to be an election before the vote could take place. The government wouldn't be able to pass the vote without a new mandate and probably new PM.
Also, Dave saying yesterday that the EU is a bit shit is preparing the ground for his U-turn should Leave win.
I don't know if I agree with that Max.
Gove/Boris could quit into the EEA and immediately apply the emergency brake for two years. Plus annouce further measures.
That would give them a lot of political cover.
I agree that they might try, but it would be a brave PM who tried to sell it to the public without renewing the government's mandate. If they said it was temporary while we work on a bilateral deal with the EU which includes welfare discrimination, it may just about get through Parliament with UUP/DUP help as Labour, LDs, SNP and 10-20 Cons (and possibly the 4 SF MPs) would all vote against.
Gove/Boris: "Leave only just won. We have to respect the fact the country is divided on this. We are going to try this (the EEA) which preserves full access to the single market, but allows us to quit the political institutions of the EU, the European Court, make our own trade deals and apply a genuine emergency brake, which I can confirm we will apply as of Monday next week. Judge us on our progress at GE2020."
Casino_Royale whilst you can see some likelihood of Gove or Boris announcing that, it would render the whole of the campaign entirely disingenuous, as Gove and Boris pledged to get immigration down to the tens of thousands.
I think Gove said - IIRC - that was his intention over time. Quite a long time. He specifically said it couldn't happen immediately.
You mean Gove/Boris might take us into the EEA and then out completely? I doubt that is what either of them foresees or intends.
I am quite happy to conclude, on the other hand, that Britain would end up in the EEA or EFTA after a leave vote. I just don't have it on the ballot paper to vote for.
I see Rob Hayward is calling it for leave. No idea of his credentials but apparently he was quite good with the GE result last year.
I think a narrow Leave vote and an exit into the EEA, via Parliament vote, may now be a 40% shot.
Yes, I think that is what we are realistically looking at, but I think there will need to be an election before the vote could take place. The government wouldn't be able to pass the vote without a new mandate and probably new PM.
Also, Dave saying yesterday that the EU is a bit shit is preparing the ground for his U-turn should Leave win.
I don't know if I agree with that Max.
Gove/Boris could quit into the EEA and immediately apply the emergency brake for two years. Plus annouce further measures.
That would give them a lot of political cover.
I agree that they might try, but it would be a brave PM who tried to sell it to the public without renewing the government's mandate. If they said it was temporary while we work on a bilateral deal with the EU which includes welfare discrimination, it may just about get through Parliament with UUP/DUP help as Labour, LDs, SNP and 10-20 Cons (and possibly the 4 SF MPs) would all vote against.
Gove/Boris: "Leave only just won. We have to respect the fact the country is divided on this. We are going to try this (the EEA) which preserves full access to the single market, but allows us to quit the political institutions of the EU, the European Court, make our own trade deals and apply a genuine emergency brake, which I can confirm we will apply as of Monday next week. Judge us on our progress at GE2020."
Casino_Royale whilst you can see some likelihood of Gove or Boris announcing that, it would render the whole of the campaign entirely disingenuous, as Gove and Boris pledged to get immigration down to the tens of thousands.
No, it wouldn't. The pledge would still stand but the mandate for a more clean break might not be there. If it was 65/35 for Leave, then yes.
Make no mistake: I want a full break and bespoke EU-UK treaty and new European institutional framework led by the UK. But real politik will govern.
All I'm saying is that I'd take the EEA over the EU any day.
Where i do agree with you is that the UK Government would simply have to do something extra on migration, no matter what the result.
If they could demonstrate reduced numbers by GE2020 then it'd count as a win.
Sky Exc: Electoral Commission is telling authorities to prepare for a Scottish Referendum level of turnout in the EU Referendum "around 80%"
Wow. The guy on Newsnight was talking about turnout last night.
Here was his analysis
Under 55% = Brexit.
55%-75% = Bremain.
Over 75% = Brexit.
But they said the same in Scotland - that a big turnout favoured YES, and they were wrong.
I can see the argument that the previously disengaged C2DE non-voters will be highly motivated by the Leave argument against immigration, sufficient even to significantly increase turnout rates over recent general election levels. I think the gap between ABC1 and C2DE turnout levels, that has grown significantly over the past two decades, will be far less in this referendum. However, I am far less convinced that young voters are sufficiently enthused by the EU to turn out in greater numbers than they did at the general election.
'Nigel Farage's Little England' made it into PMQs.....this one will run & run.......
While Corbyn's strategy of pointing out Tory splits was sound - he sounded whiney as Cameron did his 'lets rise above this and see where there is consensus'.....
"Little England" may run and run but I doubt if it's the killer point that Cameron thinks it is.
You missed a bit:
Nigel Farage's Little England
Why did VoteLEAVE get upset when the ITV program was Cameron & Farage?
I see Rob Hayward is calling it for leave. No idea of his credentials but apparently he was quite good with the GE result last year.
I think a narrow Leave vote and an exit into the EEA, via Parliament vote, may now be a 40% shot.
Yes, I think that is what we are realistically looking at, but I think there will need to be an election before the vote could take place. The government wouldn't be able to pass the vote without a new mandate and probably new PM.
Also, Dave saying yesterday that the EU is a bit shit is preparing the ground for his U-turn should Leave win.
I don't know if I agree with that Max.
Gove/Boris could quit into the EEA and immediately apply the emergency brake for two years. Plus annouce further measures.
That would give them a lot of political cover.
I agree that they might try, but it would be a brave PM who tried to sell it to the public without renewing the government's mandate. If they said it was temporary while we work on a bilateral deal with the EU which includes welfare discrimination, it may just about get through Parliament with UUP/DUP help as Labour, LDs, SNP and 10-20 Cons (and possibly the 4 SF MPs) would all vote against.
Gove/Boris: "Leave only just won. We have to respect the fact the country is divided on this. We are going to try this (the EEA) which preserves full access to the single market, but allows us to quit the political institutions of the EU, the European Court, make our own trade deals and apply a genuine emergency brake, which I can confirm we will apply as of Monday next week. Judge us on our progress at GE2020."
Yes, I agree with that, it is, as we put into our report the most likely outcome of a close Brexit result. I think a majority of people would be in favour of EEA membership post-Brexit, but to immediately push that angle without consulting the people either by seeking a new mandate or a new referendum may backfire. It is possible and for me, the perfect outcome, the one I have been in favour of since the beginning. Getting out from under the yoke of the ECJ is one of the biggest wins of leaving for me.
@faisalislam: Sky Exc: Electoral Commission is telling authorities to prepare for a Scottish Referendum level of turnout in the EU Referendum "around 80%"
Wow! Buy over 80% at 22 on Betfair. Buy 75-80% at 7
Electoral Commission are playing on the safe side to ensure they don't run dry of ballots at peak times at polling stations.
I see Rob Hayward is calling it for leave. No idea of his credentials but apparently he was quite good with the GE result last year.
I think a narrow Leave vote and an exit into the EEA, via Parliament vote, may now be a 40% shot.
Yes, I think that is what we are realistically looking at, but I think there will need to be an election before the vote could take place. The government wouldn't be able to pass the vote without a new mandate and probably new PM.
Also, Dave saying yesterday that the EU is a bit shit is preparing the ground for his U-turn should Leave win.
I don't know if I agree with that Max.
Gove/Boris could quit into the EEA and immediately apply the emergency brake for two years. Plus annouce further measures.
That would give them a lot of political cover.
I agree that they might try, but it would be a brave PM who tried to sell it to the public without renewing the government's mandate. If they said it was temporary while we work on a bilateral deal with the EU which includes welfare discrimination, it may just about get through Parliament with UUP/DUP help as Labour, LDs, SNP and 10-20 Cons (and possibly the 4 SF MPs) would all vote against.
Gove/Boris: "Leave only just won. We have to respect the fact the country is divided on this. We are going to try this (the EEA) which preserves full access to the single market, but allows us to quit the political institutions of the EU, the European Court, make our own trade deals and apply a genuine emergency brake, which I can confirm we will apply as of Monday next week. Judge us on our progress at GE2020."
Casino_Royale whilst you can see some likelihood of Gove or Boris announcing that, it would render the whole of the campaign entirely disingenuous, as Gove and Boris pledged to get immigration down to the tens of thousands.
Applying the EEA emergency brake would certainly do that.
On topic, good bet. Puts the nats on the Safety side and the unionists on the Change side. See what Sturgeon and Salmond can do when it's their turn with the FUD.
Listening to PMQ's the HOC is vastly pro remain but DC agrees with Liam Fox that HMG must respect the decision of the British peoples. For all the abuse he receives DC will serve Section 50 without hesitation on a leave vote
If it's within a couple of hundred thou votes either way the lawyers will have a field day and we'll have our own version of hanging chads. Popcorn makers rejoice.
'Nigel Farage's Little England' made it into PMQs.....this one will run & run.......
While Corbyn's strategy of pointing out Tory splits was sound - he sounded whiney as Cameron did his 'lets rise above this and see where there is consensus'.....
"Little England" may run and run but I doubt if it's the killer point that Cameron thinks it is.
You missed a bit:
Nigel Farage's Little England
Why did VoteLEAVE get upset when the ITV program was Cameron & Farage?
We had the briefing about 'the ground game' yesterday, now we have the push to keep vote registration open, primarily for the young. Then we have this.
It smells of the same desperation that Labour's general election campaign did.
Cameron is Ed trying to cobble together the rainbow coalition because the Tories see him as a puppet in Merkel's pocket.
I see Rob Hayward is calling it for leave. No idea of his credentials but apparently he was quite good with the GE result last year.
I think a narrow Leave vote and an exit into the EEA, via Parliament vote, may now be a 40% shot.
Yes, Ithe EU is a bit shit is preparing the ground for his U-turn should Leave win.
I don't know if I agree with that Max.
Gove/Boris could quit into the EEA and immediately apply the emergency brake for two years. Plus annouce further measures.
That would give them a lot of political cover.
I agte against.
Gove/Boris: "Leave only just won. We have to respect the fact the country is divided on this. We are going to try this (the EEA) which preserves full access to the single market, but allows us to quit the political institutions of the EU, the European Court, make our own trade deals and apply a genuine emergency brake, which I can confirm we will apply as of Monday next week. Judge us on our progress at GE2020."
Casino_Royale whilst you can see some likelihood of Gove or Boris announcing that, it would render the whole of the campaign entirely disingenuous, as Gove and Boris pledged to get immigration down to the tens of thousands.
I think Gove said - IIRC - that was his intention over time. Quite a long time. He specifically said it couldn't happen immediately.
You mean Gove/Boris might take us into the EEA and then out completely? I doubt that is what either of them foresees or intends.
I am quite happy to conclude, on the other hand, that Britain would end up in the EEA or EFTA after a leave vote. I just don't have it on the ballot paper to vote for.
But status quo in the EU - which is what REMAIN is promising - isn't actually on the ballot paper either. The EU will very swiftly change in coming years, and will start doing stuff we don't like the day after we vote to stay.
So neither side can promise anything for sure.
I think this is where Leave are missing a trick. It isn't status quo (or as Dave promised a bit of a roll back of EU) vs Leave....it is more integration, bigger EU vs leave...
'Nigel Farage's Little England' made it into PMQs.....this one will run & run.......
While Corbyn's strategy of pointing out Tory splits was sound - he sounded whiney as Cameron did his 'lets rise above this and see where there is consensus'.....
"Little England" may run and run but I doubt if it's the killer point that Cameron thinks it is.
You missed a bit:
Nigel Farage's Little England
Why did VoteLEAVE get upset when the ITV program was Cameron & Farage?
"Nigel Farage's Little England": Join Mr F. on a journey around the byways of the Home Counties in a Morris Minor. Coming soon to ITV2.
a) I toss a coin 100 times. I find that the longest run of tails is six. Is there anything I can conclude about whether the coin is unbiased or not?
b) I toss a coin a million times. What is the longest run of tails for me to conclude the coin is biased towards tails (or heads)?
You can guess if you like..."
Any more guesses?
a) I would guess no. 2^6 is 64 - which means it's pretty common in a 100 run.
b) If we get 20, we get over the magical 1m number. So I'd reckon 23 or 24 would be the level where I'd suspect a biased coin rather than just chance. Of course, I'd want to look at the total number of tails and not just a single run!
a) It turns out that the expected value for the run of tails for any number of tosses n is ROUND(log2(n) -1). In the case of 100 that would be six. So we certainly cannot conclude the coin is biased.
b) Applying the above formula we find the expected value is 19. But how far from this would we have to be to be suspicious. This is where it gets interesting...
It turns out the 95% confidence interval is [-3,+3] around this value, and for large n >=50, this range is independent of n. It never changes! The 99% confidence interval is [-3,+6] for any large n.
So depending on your view, a run of 26 tails in 1,000,000 tosses would be very unlikely. But so would a maximum run of only 15!
Addressing Robert's final point. We might have the sequence HT repeated 500,000 times. The coin is clearly unbiased between heads and tails, but there is definitely something wrong with it!
Apparently, this technique can be used in forensic accountancy, and also to identify ballot fraud [too many consecutive ballots]
Scottish independence is dependent on Scotland being a viable country. At present it just isn't. The GERS figures show that Scotland had a 9% deficit between what is currently spent on public services and what is raised in tax in Scotland. That makes Greece look like Germany.
The last time around we had a white paper from the government of Scotland promising an extra £1000 a head in public spending and a Leave type list of all the things that we could spend it on. Pre-school education was the favourite and a vote for Independence was supposed to be a vote for their future.
This was of course a dishonest fantasy but many people believed it and voted for it. That simply would not happen again. The vast majority appreciate that if Scotland was independent now we would be facing austerity on a scale that would make Osborne shiver.
What the SNP need to do is get on with actually governing, help the Scottish economy to grow in viable ways (less green nonsense that only makes economic sense if it is subsidised by the public purse) and close that gap. If they do then the discussion can no doubt take place again but that is not a 2 year project.
Sturgeon is far from stupid and is acutely aware of this. She will do her best to avoid a referendum that she knows she would lose and which would set independence back for a generation. There is a chance that, Cameron like, she might find herself blocked in and with no choice but to offer a referendum but the odds against that are way more than 5/1. Not a good bet.
Would Scotland not become a net recipient of EU money?
No. Our GDP per head is currently above the EU average and will be even more so when the next tranche of Balkan states are admitted. EU strategic funds will not be diverted from those living in genuine poverty to subsidise those who think they are entitled.
The inference there, since our GDP/head will RISE relative to the EU average, is that our contributions will GO UP!
Miss Vance, because the phrase isn't Nigel Farage's Little England. It's just Little England, which is meant to disparage England and its people.
That's the whole point (and I'm sure they've focus grouped it) - it's Nigel Farage's (i.e. someone who is very polarising among the electorate) Little England
The disparagement lies in tying England to Farage......for the voters they are trying to reach....of course the Farage Fanboys won't see it that way....
a) I toss a coin 100 times. I find that the longest run of tails is six. Is there anything I can conclude about whether the coin is unbiased or not?
b) I toss a coin a million times. What is the longest run of tails for me to conclude the coin is biased towards tails (or heads)?
You can guess if you like..."
Any more guesses?
a) I would guess no. 2^6 is 64 - which means it's pretty common in a 100 run.
b) If we get 20, we get over the magical 1m number. So I'd reckon 23 or 24 would be the level where I'd suspect a biased coin rather than just chance. Of course, I'd want to look at the total number of tails and not just a single run!
a) It turns out that the expected value for the run of tails for any number of tosses n is ROUND(log2(n) -1). In the case of 100 that would be six. So we certainly cannot conclude the coin is biased.
b) Applying the above formula we find the expected vale is 19. But how far from this would we have to be to be suspicious. This is where it gets interesting...
It turns out the 95% confidence interval is [-3,+3] around this value, and for large n >=50, this range is independent of n. It never changes! The 99% confidence interval is [-3,+6] for any large n.
So depending on your view, a run of 26 tails in 1,000,000 tosses would be very unlikely. But so would a maximum run of only 15!
Addressing Robert's final point. We might have the sequence HT repeated 500,000 times. The coin is clearly unbiased between heads and tails, but there is definitely something wrong with it!
Apparently, this technique can be used in forensic accountancy, and also to identify ballot fraud [too many consecutive ballots]
Also: one technique for accountancy fraud is spotting too evenly a range of prices. You would expect prices starting with a 1 to account for 30% of all invoices, 18% with a 2, 12% with a 3 and so on.
@faisalislam: Sky Exc: Electoral Commission is telling authorities to prepare for a Scottish Referendum level of turnout in the EU Referendum "around 80%"
Wow! Buy over 80% at 22 on Betfair. Buy 75-80% at 7
Isn't scotland special? As in vast numbers are registered thanks to the indie vote?
Isn't turnout a proportion of those registered? If so, wouldn't higher registration levels (due to a factor not strictly relevant to the election at hand) tend to imply a lower turnout percentage as it suggests those less inclined to participate are more likely to be registered?
Miss Vance, because the phrase isn't Nigel Farage's Little England. It's just Little England, which is meant to disparage England and its people.
That's the whole point (and I'm sure they've focus grouped it) - it's Nigel Farage's (i.e. someone who is very polarising among the electorate) Little England
The disparagement lies in tying England to Farage......for the voters they are trying to reach....of course the Farage Fanboys won't see it that way....
Farage is more popular and more trusted than the PM, though, so I don't think it will work.
I see Rob Hayward is calling it for leave. No idea of his credentials but apparently he was quite good with the GE result last year.
I think a narrow Leave vote and an exit into the EEA, via Parliament vote, may now be a 40% shot.
Yes, I think that is what we are realistically looking at, but I think there will need to be an election before the vote could take place. The government wouldn't be able to pass the vote without a new mandate and probably new PM.
Also, Dave saying yesterday that the EU is a bit shit is preparing the ground for his U-turn should Leave win.
I don't know if I agree with that Max.
Gove/Boris could quit into the EEA and immediately apply the emergency brake for two years. Plus annouce further measures.
That would give them a lot of political cover.
I agree that they might try, but it would be a brave PM who tried to sell it to the public without renewing the government's mandate. If they said it was temporary while we work on a bilateral deal with the EU which includes welfare discrimination, it may just about get through Parliament with UUP/DUP help as Labour, LDs, SNP and 10-20 Cons (and possibly the 4 SF MPs) would all vote against.
Gove/Boris: "Leave only just won. We have to respect the fact the country is divided on this. We are going to try this (the EEA) which preserves full access to the single market, but allows us to quit the political institutions of the EU, the European Court, make our own trade deals and apply a genuine emergency brake, which I can confirm we will apply as of Monday next week. Judge us on our progress at GE2020."
Casino_Royale whilst you can see some likelihood of Gove or Boris announcing that, it would render the whole of the campaign entirely disingenuous, as Gove and Boris pledged to get immigration down to the tens of thousands.
Applying the EEA emergency brake would certainly do that.
Not at all, non-EU immigration alone is more than 100k and in any case a fall in emigration could lead to the target not being met
a) I toss a coin 100 times. I find that the longest run of tails is six. Is there anything I can conclude about whether the coin is unbiased or not?
b) I toss a coin a million times. What is the longest run of tails for me to conclude the coin is biased towards tails (or heads)?
You can guess if you like..."
Any more guesses?
a) I would guess no. 2^6 is 64 - which means it's pretty common in a 100 run.
b) If we get 20, we get over the magical 1m number. So I'd reckon 23 or 24 would be the level where I'd suspect a biased coin rather than just chance. Of course, I'd want to look at the total number of tails and not just a single run!
a) It turns out that the expected value for the run of tails for any number of tosses n is ROUND(log2(n) -1). In the case of 100 that would be six. So we certainly cannot conclude the coin is biased.
b) Applying the above formula we find the expected vale is 19. But how far from this would we have to be to be suspicious. This is where it gets interesting...
It turns out the 95% confidence interval is [-3,+3] around this value, and for large n >=50, this range is independent of n. It never changes! The 99% confidence interval is [-3,+6] for any large n.
So depending on your view, a run of 26 tails in 1,000,000 tosses would be very unlikely. But so would a maximum run of only 15!
Addressing Robert's final point. We might have the sequence HT repeated 500,000 times. The coin is clearly unbiased between heads and tails, but there is definitely something wrong with it!
Apparently, this technique can be used in forensic accountancy, and also to identify ballot fraud [too many consecutive ballots]
Also: one technique for accountancy fraud is spotting too evenly a range of prices. You would expect prices starting with a 1 to account for 30% of all invoices, 18% with a 2, 12% with a 3 and so on.
Miss Vance, then their focus group didn't have a morris dancer in it.
They can disparage Farage all they like; disparaging England does nothing to make me think these people have England's (or Britain's, more broadly) interests at heart. Indeed, quite the opposite.
Sky Exc: Electoral Commission is telling authorities to prepare for a Scottish Referendum level of turnout in the EU Referendum "around 80%"
Wow. The guy on Newsnight was talking about turnout last night.
Here was his analysis
Under 55% = Brexit.
55%-75% = Bremain.
Over 75% = Brexit.
But they said the same in Scotland - that a big turnout favoured YES, and they were wrong.
I can see the argument that the previously disengaged C2DE non-voters will be highly motivated by the Leave argument against immigration, sufficient even to significantly increase turnout rates over recent general election levels. I think the gap between ABC1 and C2DE turnout levels, that has grown significantly over the past two decades, will be far less in this referendum. However, I am far less convinced that young voters are sufficiently enthused by the EU to turn out in greater numbers than they did at the general election.
Even in the Scottish referendum, turnout among young voters was *much* lower compared to older voters.
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
As I said yesterday little England is what the EU wants to turn the UK into -a subservient member of the EUSSR with no real influence as we can outvoted on everything Great Britain is what we can be when the tie with the EU is cut we can be free fo trade with whoever we wish and be a beacon for freedom and democracy
Miss Vance, because the phrase isn't Nigel Farage's Little England. It's just Little England, which is meant to disparage England and its people.
That's the whole point (and I'm sure they've focus grouped it) - it's Nigel Farage's (i.e. someone who is very polarising among the electorate) Little England
The disparagement lies in tying England to Farage......for the voters they are trying to reach....of course the Farage Fanboys won't see it that way....
No - I see a 'little England' as a small part of the EU - a "Proud England" or "Great England" as standing on its own two feet (not spread out).
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Great song for 'Little England' - from a short run musical 'Betty Blue Eyes' based on the film 'A Private Function' where a group of the lower middle classes pinch a pig in ration stricken Britain destined for the toff's banquet to celebrate the wedding of Princess Elizabeth:
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
"Originally it applied to a wing of the Liberal Party opposed to expansion of the British Empire in the 19th century, who wanted "England" to extend no farther than the borders of the United Kingdom."
They could only reopen the site for a few hours, though, surely? As the site only crashed for a few hours, at most.
Who knows. What a mess. They'd probably have to announce it was re-open and then be sure people knew it was open. How do they do that and reach the young? Facebook adverts?
Our system of electoral registration generally is in a mess, allowing a level of disenfranchisement that takes place in few other countries, one that has been made significantly worse by the advent of IER in place of household registration. It's getting worse each year, as we saw first with the introduction of IER in 2015 and then in 2016 with the full rollout (deleting names which had been kept on automatically until then). It will get worse still in the years after 2016, as many people are still on the register only because they have not moved house since the original 2014 data matching exercise, and as the % of the population who are in their same residence as 2014 declines, so the impact of IER will grow.
As some stage, there will be calls for resignations at the Electoral Commission, as they pushed this flawed new system, one of their arguments being that it would help reverse a historic decline in registration under the old household system. Instead it's made things far worse and someone has to be held accountable.
It's instructive that the flaws in electoral registration are suddenly in the news, far more than in 2015. Suddenly, there's an urgency to do something. Could this be that, the flaws in registration could well help deliver an election result in June 2016, that Cameron and the establishment generally don't want, whereas in 2015 it delivered the result that some might (cynically, I admit) claim it had been designed to.
So I've taken down some notes from our EU reaction report:
- Brexit will cause an economic shock worth about 1% to the EU economy.
- The EU will react by trying to bounce the UK into the EEA/EFTA in order to minimise economic damage and maintain full trading rights for EU companies.
- No concessions will be given on immigration in the immediate aftermath, but negotiations will be opened after a few months with whoever the new PM is.
- The UK will continue to be invited to EU summits but will have effective observer status and no voting rights, but will have input into the discussions to ensure our interests are protected.
- Brexit will also cause a short term rise in populism across the continent, the Netherlands is one to watch since they have an election in March of 2017 and Vilders' PVV are already in a pretty commanding position looking to end up with more seats than the two mainstream parties put together.
- If the UK can successfully walk the line of EEA membership then Sweden and Denmark won't be far behind, neither country is enamoured by the EU and neither country is going to join the EMU. This will be done to see off populist uprisings in both countries.
- On the economic side, we believe that the TPIP will be stone cold dead once we leave as Germany will have no major partner who is willing to push forwards with it. Generally we think that the EU will become a bit more inward looking and pursue a more protectionist agenda.
- Brussels will also push ahead with integrationist policies now that the major roadblock (the UK) has left, it will not be well received in many countries. They will feel the need to hold the rest of the union tighter, but not realise that it will be like clenching a fist around sand.
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
I imagine that people like Richard Tyndall and Robert Smithson would be entirely happy to be associated with people like Cobden and Gladstone.
I would avoid using the term. Whilst it has some relevance, the danger is that it could look anti-English. After all the alternative is not big England but Great Britain, so it might suggest England needs the moderating influence of the Celts. I'm probably amongst a minority of Celts who doesn't believe that.
Did no-one think there would be a big spike in demand on the last day? As I said earlier if this happened in the private sector they would be pleading for their job today, and I work as an interim IT Director, usually after the last guy got fired for this sort of mess.
I usually consult for the last guy that got fired for this sort of mess, design him a solution that will work under the load, which he promptly ignores because it not how they do things here, or costs too much, or we won't really be needed will it, and then gets fired
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Really? I've heard of it and I was 13 20 years ago.
Miss Vance, because the phrase isn't Nigel Farage's Little England. It's just Little England, which is meant to disparage England and its people.
That's the whole point (and I'm sure they've focus grouped it) - it's Nigel Farage's (i.e. someone who is very polarising among the electorate) Little England
The disparagement lies in tying England to Farage......for the voters they are trying to reach....of course the Farage Fanboys won't see it that way....
Farage is more popular and more trusted than the PM, though, so I don't think it will work.
They are pretty much equally distrusted:
@BritainElects: A large majority of Britons distrust both David Cameron and Nigel Farage when it comes to the EU: #ITVEURef
Net Distrust: Cameron: -49 Farage: -41
So since its a mistake by REMAIN, I expect you'll be pleased to see it continue
Funnily enough, when people suggested the new registration arrangements favoured Conservatives over Labour, HMG seemed less concerned.
Yes, odd that.
By the way, the BHS evidence is quite astonishing, isn't it? Theft, murder threats - "unnacceptable face of capitalism" doesn't begin to cover it. It would get rejected as implausible in a mini-TV series.
Miss Vance, because the phrase isn't Nigel Farage's Little England. It's just Little England, which is meant to disparage England and its people.
That's the whole point (and I'm sure they've focus grouped it) - it's Nigel Farage's (i.e. someone who is very polarising among the electorate) Little England
The disparagement lies in tying England to Farage......for the voters they are trying to reach....of course the Farage Fanboys won't see it that way....
Farage is more popular and more trusted than the PM, though, so I don't think it will work.
They are pretty much equally distrusted:
@BritainElects: A large majority of Britons distrust both David Cameron and Nigel Farage when it comes to the EU: #ITVEURef
Net Distrust: Cameron: -49 Farage: -41
So since its a mistake by REMAIN, I expect you'll be pleased to see it continue
a) I toss a coin 100 times. I find that the longest run of tails is six. Is there anything I can conclude about whether the coin is unbiased or not?
b) I toss a coin a million times. What is the longest run of tails for me to conclude the coin is biased towards tails (or heads)?
You can guess if you like..."
Any more guesses?
I toss an unbiased head/tail coin in an unbiased way 100 times and it comes up heads each time. I toss it again. What is the probability that it comes up heads again?
a) > 50% a momentum argument b) exactly 50% it is an unbiased coin with no memory c) < 50% a reversion to the mean argument
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Even stupider when you consider that a lot of the nation is going to be waving St George's Cross on Saturday when we beat the Russians! As I said yesterday, this is an unforced error that Blair would not have made.
@SeanT I gave the Wikipedia link precisely to illustrate that it is a normal understanding of the phrase.
I appreciate that those who want to puff out their chests, smear themselves in woad and ride chariots with blades mounted in the wheels won't care for the phrase. That is not the intended audience.
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Frankly, I think that original definition of "Little England" would find quite a lot of takers among the public right now. Quite a lot of people want us to turn inwards and just focus on ourselves and stop "poking our noses in the rest of the world's business" - Donald Trump has been making hay with a similar argument, after all.
I'm not sure Joe Public has anything like the concern for "Britain's place in the world" that some of the leading "Remain" campaigners have (Labour "Remain" campaigners are especially fond of banging on with that line, I've noticed).
Miss Vance, because the phrase isn't Nigel Farage's Little England. It's just Little England, which is meant to disparage England and its people.
That's the whole point (and I'm sure they've focus grouped it) - it's Nigel Farage's (i.e. someone who is very polarising among the electorate) Little England
The disparagement lies in tying England to Farage......for the voters they are trying to reach....of course the Farage Fanboys won't see it that way....
Farage is more popular and more trusted than the PM, though, so I don't think it will work.
They are pretty much equally distrusted:
@BritainElects: A large majority of Britons distrust both David Cameron and Nigel Farage when it comes to the EU: #ITVEURef
Net Distrust: Cameron: -49 Farage: -41
So since its a mistake by REMAIN, I expect you'll be pleased to see it continue
Frankly, I think that original definition of "Little England" would find quite a lot of takers among the public right now. Quite a lot of people want us to turn inwards and just focus on ourselves and stop "poking our noses in the rest of the world's business" - Donald Trump has been making hay with a similar argument, after all.
This is the point Janan Ganesh made in his FT article posted earlier in the week
The Leavers are strange bedfellows (as are Remainers) and if they win, some of them are going to be very, very angry indeed at what happens next
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
It's just completely bare-faced now, isn't it? All of them. They just lie. Cameron to Khan and beyond. Corbyn is no different, he's lying about the EU, he wants to LEAVE.
I know politicians always lie but it seems to me they're getting worse at it.
He's also dumped the affordable housing pledge as unaffordable. Two key policies dumped now to avoid scrutiny after the referendum.
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
I think we all need to hope it's reasonably decisive either way.
A win either way by 200K whether they do or do not reopen registration has got "we wuz robbed" echoing down the decades written all over it, and will infect the body politic very badly.
From Cameron's statement looks like anyone who registered last night or today they are trying to ensure get a vote . Don't know what the legalities of that will be?
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
No he can't. England ex London is 45m. London plus Scotland plus Ulster is 18m.
If he loses badly in England he loses badly in the UK.
Yougov this week had Leave narrowly ahead in the North, the Midlands and the South but Remain ahead by 1% across the UK due to big Remain leads in London and Scotland
@DAaronovitch: "Freedom to be sacked for daring to have a baby doesn’t chime so well with the poster invitation to 'take control”. @rafaelbehr on Brexit.
It's just completely bare-faced now, isn't it? All of them. They just lie. Cameron to Khan and beyond. Corbyn is no different, he's lying about the EU, he wants to LEAVE.
I know politicians always lie but it seems to me they're getting worse at it.
Hat tip to The Social Network: "The Internet's not written in pencil - it's written in ink".
This is the problem for 21st century politicians, we get to record their every utterance and (collectively) remember it and use it to weigh them in the balance.
So I've taken down some notes from our EU reaction report:
- Brexit will cause an economic shock worth about 1% to the EU economy.
- The EU will react by trying to bounce the UK into the EEA/EFTA in order to minimise economic damage and maintain full trading rights for EU companies.
- No concessions will be given on immigration in the immediate aftermath, but negotiations will be opened after a few months with whoever the new PM is.
- The UK will continue to be invited to EU summits but will have effective observer status and no voting rights, but will have input into the discussions to ensure our interests are protected.
- Brexit will also cause a short term rise in populism across the continent, the Netherlands is one to watch since they have an election in March of 2017 and Vilders' PVV are already in a pretty commanding position looking to end up with more seats than the two mainstream parties put together.
- If the UK can successfully walk the line of EEA membership then Sweden and Denmark won't be far behind, neither country is enamoured by the EU and neither country is going to join the EMU. This will be done to see off populist uprisings in both countries.
- On the economic side, we believe that the TPIP will be stone cold dead once we leave as Germany will have no major partner who is willing to push forwards with it. Generally we think that the EU will become a bit more inward looking and pursue a more protectionist agenda.
- Brussels will also push ahead with integrationist policies now that the major roadblock (the UK) has left, it will not be well received in many countries. They will feel the need to hold the rest of the union tighter, but not realise that it will be like clenching a fist around sand.
That's a pretty sensible assessment.
I just wonder (like most on here, and aside from the obvious control of borders issue) about the political practicalities of re-entry into an EU acronym having just voted to leave one.
It's just completely bare-faced now, isn't it? All of them. They just lie. Cameron to Khan and beyond. Corbyn is no different, he's lying about the EU, he wants to LEAVE.
I know politicians always lie but it seems to me they're getting worse at it.
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
No he can't. England ex London is 45m. London plus Scotland plus Ulster is 18m.
If he loses badly in England he loses badly in the UK.
Yougov this week had Leave narrowly ahead in the North, the Midlands and the South but Remain ahead by 1% across the UK due to big Remain leads in London and Scotland
I said "if he loses BADLY in England". Repeating the phrase "Little England" might secure him that result.
It shows a tin ear. People who live in provincial England won't react well to it, and suggests that the Prime Minister has simply written off any chance of persuading them.
@SeanT I expect the intended audience is bourgeois over-50s who dislike Nigel Farage. I also expect it has been focus-grouped given how it has obviously been picked as a theme.
I note that one of the key persuadable groups is Eurosceptic Conservative voters who don't like Nigel Farage. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is connected to them.
From Cameron's statement looks like anyone who registered last night or today they are trying to ensure get a vote . Don't know what the legalities of that will be?
From Cameron's statement looks like anyone who registered last night or today they are trying to ensure get a vote . Don't know what the legalities of that will be?
They're going to rush through emergency legislation to make it valid.
From Cameron's statement looks like anyone who registered last night or today they are trying to ensure get a vote . Don't know what the legalities of that will be?
It's Desperate Dave in action, the screw up happened on his watch. So the 50k who couldn't organise themselves over 6 months will lead to a few 100k now logging on.
This is the moral hazard Dave now wants to play with, what happens when he realises they haven't voted on time becasue they were still down the pub or forgot.
And the chances of heads rolling at the elctoral commission - zero.
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
No he can't. England ex London is 45m. London plus Scotland plus Ulster is 18m.
If he loses badly in England he loses badly in the UK.
Yougov this week had Leave narrowly ahead in the North, the Midlands and the South but Remain ahead by 1% across the UK due to big Remain leads in London and Scotland
I said "if he loses BADLY in England". Repeating the phrase "Little England" might secure him that result.
By also saying 'Great Britain' he could equally have appealed to Unionist Scots, ethnic minorities etc. Those in England who are English nationalists will almost certainly be for Leave already anyway but Cameron can win, just, without them as yougov shows
So I've taken down some notes from our EU reaction report:
- Brexit will cause an economic shock worth about 1% to the EU economy.
- The EU will react by trying to bounce the UK into the EEA/EFTA in order to minimise economic damage and maintain full trading rights for EU companies.
- No concessions will be given on immigration in the immediate aftermath, but negotiations will be opened after a few months with whoever the new PM is.
- The UK will continue to be invited to EU summits but will have effective observer status and no voting rights, but will have input into the discussions to ensure our interests are protected.
- Brexit will also cause a short term rise in populism across the continent, the Netherlands is one to watch since they have an election in March of 2017 and Vilders' PVV are already in a pretty commanding position looking to end up with more seats than the two mainstream parties put together.
- If the UK can successfully walk the line of EEA membership then Sweden and Denmark won't be far behind, neither country is enamoured by the EU and neither country is going to join the EMU. This will be done to see off populist uprisings in both countries.
- On the economic side, we believe that the TPIP will be stone cold dead once we leave as Germany will have no major partner who is willing to push forwards with it. Generally we think that the EU will become a bit more inward looking and pursue a more protectionist agenda.
- Brussels will also push ahead with integrationist policies now that the major roadblock (the UK) has left, it will not be well received in many countries. They will feel the need to hold the rest of the union tighter, but not realise that it will be like clenching a fist around sand.
That's a pretty sensible assessment.
I just wonder (like most on here, and aside from the obvious control of borders issue) about the political practicalities of re-entry into an EU acronym having just voted to leave one.
Is it mentioned anywhere on VLTC for example?
Well a CR and I have been discussing, it will be possible if the PM pulls the emergency brake that EEA nations have immediately on entering. I expect this will be accepted by the EU and they will know it's coming. It will also need to pitched as a "this is just the first step". Once the new immigration settlement is achieved I expect there will be an election to renew the government's mandate.
As a LEAVER I am unfussed by that. ITV clearly wanted some articulate people with differing but intelligent opinions, and questions to match, and they got that. Cameron was also pressed pretty hard by some well-informed skeptics. Remember the Asian guy with the thorny question about migration? - that was tricky for the PM to handle, as it came from a non-white dude.
The debate had a good audience, it was the format which made it so dull.
she believes there is a right-wing media conspiracy to push images of coloured people up the Google image search rankings for the phrase “EU migrants”.
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Jeremy Corbyn spokesman suggests he will not share a pro-EU platform with Tony Blair either.
Corbyn is learning the lessons of Scotland by not platform sharing with Tories nor Blair he is focused on his base. Cameron is appealing to the centre and platform sharing with LDs, Greens and Labour MPs but risks splintering his base to UKIP
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
No he can't. England ex London is 45m. London plus Scotland plus Ulster is 18m.
If he loses badly in England he loses badly in the UK.
Yougov this week had Leave narrowly ahead in the North, the Midlands and the South but Remain ahead by 1% across the UK due to big Remain leads in London and Scotland
I have Leave 6 up in the North, 9 up in the Midlands and 4 up in the south on post purdah subsamples across pollsters (unweighted)
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Jeremy Corbyn spokesman suggests he will not share a pro-EU platform with Tony Blair either.
Well he only talks to the Morning Star and Press TV, because all the rest of the media are disgusting...so not surprised he is taking the same approach to platform sharing....SAFFFFEEEEE SPACCCEEEE.
@SeanT I gave the Wikipedia link precisely to illustrate that it is a normal understanding of the phrase.
I appreciate that those who want to puff out their chests, smear themselves in woad and ride chariots with blades mounted in the wheels won't care for the phrase. That is not the intended audience.
Small historical note: Woad and chariots with bladed wheels (though I don't think they did actually "blade" them), is surely evocative of Boudiccea (she of various spellings, but whose name best translates as "Victoria" - cf modern Welsh for "victory" buddugoliaeth ), who was a Celt of the Iceni tribe of present day Norfolk.
Thing is she almost certainly spoke Ancient British and so if she was anything that could be culturally laid claim to after 2000 odd years she's Welsh. I'm sure the old lass would've been livid at the thought of being called a "little Englander" not that the phrase would've meant anything to her given the entire concept of anybody being "englisc" lay at least 400 years in the future.
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
No he can't. England ex London is 45m. London plus Scotland plus Ulster is 18m.
If he loses badly in England he loses badly in the UK.
Yougov this week had Leave narrowly ahead in the North, the Midlands and the South but Remain ahead by 1% across the UK due to big Remain leads in London and Scotland
I have Leave 6 up in the North, 9 up in the Midlands and 4 up in the south on post purdah subsamples across pollsters (unweighted)
Yes I think Remain win the UK but Leave win England is now a distinct possibility
a) I toss a coin 100 times. I find that the longest run of tails is six. Is there anything I can conclude about whether the coin is unbiased or not?
b) I toss a coin a million times. What is the longest run of tails for me to conclude the coin is biased towards tails (or heads)?
You can guess if you like..."
Any more guesses?
a) I would guess no. 2^6 is 64 - which means it's pretty common in a 100 run.
b) If we get 20, we get over the magical 1m number. So I'd reckon 23 or 24 would be the level where I'd suspect a biased coin rather than just chance. Of course, I'd want to look at the total number of tails and not just a single run!
a) It turns out that the expected value for the run of tails for any number of tosses n is ROUND(log2(n) -1). In the case of 100 that would be six. So we certainly cannot conclude the coin is biased.
b) Applying the above formula we find the expected value is 19. But how far from this would we have to be to be suspicious. This is where it gets interesting...
It turns out the 95% confidence interval is [-3,+3] around this value, and for large n >=50, this range is independent of n. It never changes! The 99% confidence interval is [-3,+6] for any large n.
So depending on your view, a run of 26 tails in 1,000,000 tosses would be very unlikely. But so would a maximum run of only 15!
Addressing Robert's final point. We might have the sequence HT repeated 500,000 times. The coin is clearly unbiased between heads and tails, but there is definitely something wrong with it!
Apparently, this technique can be used in forensic accountancy, and also to identify ballot fraud [too many consecutive ballots]
I've just been out on my bike and was thinking about this again.
a) There is a (1/2)^6 = 1/64 chance of each of the first 94 coins being the first of a run of 6 or more heads (and no chance of the last 6 coins being such). So there's a 63/64 chance of each of the first 94 coins not being the first of a run of 6 or more heads. So the total chance of none of the coins being the first of a run of 6 is (63/64)^94 = 0.228. So the chance of there being a run 6 or more heads is 1 - 0.228 = 0.772. So the chance is significantly greater than evens that at least one run of at least 6 coins will appear when using an unbiased coin. So, no, you can't conclude anything about the bias of the coin.
Did anyone else notice this? I did. A total barefaced lie from Cameron, on last night's debate
@jdportes 15h15 hours ago Islington, London PM says again "people who come here and don't find a job in 6 months have to leave". This is simply untrue. Shocking PM continues saying this
Yes, he's said it many times. Except it's a right never tested - we don't know when people arrive, when they leave or when they have been employed. We deliberately don't link the pieces of info together so that we never get to the point where it is tested by the ECJ.
a) I toss a coin 100 times. I find that the longest run of tails is six. Is there anything I can conclude about whether the coin is unbiased or not?
b) I toss a coin a million times. What is the longest run of tails for me to conclude the coin is biased towards tails (or heads)?
You can guess if you like..."
Any more guesses?
I toss an unbiased head/tail coin in an unbiased way 100 times and it comes up heads each time. I toss it again. What is the probability that it comes up heads again?
a) > 50% a momentum argument b) exactly 50% it is an unbiased coin with no memory c) < 50% a reversion to the mean argument
a) I toss a coin 100 times. I find that the longest run of tails is six. Is there anything I can conclude about whether the coin is unbiased or not?
b) I toss a coin a million times. What is the longest run of tails for me to conclude the coin is biased towards tails (or heads)?
You can guess if you like..."
Any more guesses?
I toss an unbiased head/tail coin in an unbiased way 100 times and it comes up heads each time. I toss it again. What is the probability that it comes up heads again?
a) > 50% a momentum argument b) exactly 50% it is an unbiased coin with no memory c) < 50% a reversion to the mean argument
The problem with that is if you'd tossed your coin once a second, every second, since the beginning of the Universe, you still wouldn't expect to get a run of 100 heads (either in the total, or treating each batch of 100 as a separate trial).
Are you sure the coin is unbiased? (^_-)
A more reasonable and true example is as follows, however...
One night in 1913, at the roulette wheel in Monte Carlo, black came up 26 times in a row. The house won millions with punters betting on red [argument c)], and maybe a few betting on black for the 27th spin [argument a)].
26 blacks in a row! About 68,411,591 to 1 against. Impossible, or at least highly unlikely.
Yes, for that particular table.
However, when all spins on all roulette wheels in the history of the world are considered, it's entirely unremarkable. You would only need about 500 million spins to have heard on one such run of 26 blacks, and I don't think we've heard of another...
It's just completely bare-faced now, isn't it? All of them. They just lie. Cameron to Khan and beyond. Corbyn is no different, he's lying about the EU, he wants to LEAVE.
I know politicians always lie but it seems to me they're getting worse at it.
@rwainwright67: To be very clear: Mr Farage's claim on #itvdebate that I have said EU migration policy led to 5,000 jihadists coming to Europe is 100% false
@IanDunt: Last night Farage cited report showing "marginal loss" to UK economy from migration.It's nowhere to be seen https://t.co/KYqau9rt2d
Comments
We chose the words, and yeah, we drew the lines
There was just no way this house could hold the two of us
I guess that we were just too much of the same kind
Well say goodbye it's Independence Day
It's Independence Day all boys must run away"
I am quite happy to conclude, on the other hand, that Britain would end up in the EEA or EFTA after a leave vote. I just don't have it on the ballot paper to vote for.
Make no mistake: I want a full break and bespoke EU-UK treaty and new European institutional framework led by the UK. But real politik will govern.
All I'm saying is that I'd take the EEA over the EU any day.
Where i do agree with you is that the UK Government would simply have to do something extra on migration, no matter what the result.
If they could demonstrate reduced numbers by GE2020 then it'd count as a win.
Nigel Farage's Little England
Why did VoteLEAVE get upset when the ITV program was Cameron & Farage?
I doubt turnout will be above 80%.
It smells of the same desperation that Labour's general election campaign did.
Cameron is Ed trying to cobble together the rainbow coalition because the Tories see him as a puppet in Merkel's pocket.
b) Applying the above formula we find the expected value is 19. But how far from this would we have to be to be suspicious. This is where it gets interesting...
It turns out the 95% confidence interval is [-3,+3] around this value, and for large n >=50, this range is independent of n. It never changes! The 99% confidence interval is [-3,+6] for any large n.
So depending on your view, a run of 26 tails in 1,000,000 tosses would be very unlikely. But so would a maximum run of only 15!
Addressing Robert's final point. We might have the sequence HT repeated 500,000 times. The coin is clearly unbiased between heads and tails, but there is definitely something wrong with it!
Apparently, this technique can be used in forensic accountancy, and also to identify ballot fraud [too many consecutive ballots]
The disparagement lies in tying England to Farage......for the voters they are trying to reach....of course the Farage Fanboys won't see it that way....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Englander
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
They can disparage Farage all they like; disparaging England does nothing to make me think these people have England's (or Britain's, more broadly) interests at heart. Indeed, quite the opposite.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uxOFlKAJpQ
Jonathan Ross ITV chat show 'to be axed' amid falling ratings
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/06/08/jonathan-ross-itv-chat-show-to-be-axed-amid-falling-ratings/
They were ahead of their time!
Personalising things works both ways.
As some stage, there will be calls for resignations at the Electoral Commission, as they pushed this flawed new system, one of their arguments being that it would help reverse a historic decline in registration under the old household system. Instead it's made things far worse and someone has to be held accountable.
It's instructive that the flaws in electoral registration are suddenly in the news, far more than in 2015. Suddenly, there's an urgency to do something. Could this be that, the flaws in registration could well help deliver an election result in June 2016, that Cameron and the establishment generally don't want, whereas in 2015 it delivered the result that some might (cynically, I admit) claim it had been designed to.
- Brexit will cause an economic shock worth about 1% to the EU economy.
- The EU will react by trying to bounce the UK into the EEA/EFTA in order to minimise economic damage and maintain full trading rights for EU companies.
- No concessions will be given on immigration in the immediate aftermath, but negotiations will be opened after a few months with whoever the new PM is.
- The UK will continue to be invited to EU summits but will have effective observer status and no voting rights, but will have input into the discussions to ensure our interests are protected.
- Brexit will also cause a short term rise in populism across the continent, the Netherlands is one to watch since they have an election in March of 2017 and Vilders' PVV are already in a pretty commanding position looking to end up with more seats than the two mainstream parties put together.
- If the UK can successfully walk the line of EEA membership then Sweden and Denmark won't be far behind, neither country is enamoured by the EU and neither country is going to join the EMU. This will be done to see off populist uprisings in both countries.
- On the economic side, we believe that the TPIP will be stone cold dead once we leave as Germany will have no major partner who is willing to push forwards with it. Generally we think that the EU will become a bit more inward looking and pursue a more protectionist agenda.
- Brussels will also push ahead with integrationist policies now that the major roadblock (the UK) has left, it will not be well received in many countries. They will feel the need to hold the rest of the union tighter, but not realise that it will be like clenching a fist around sand.
@BritainElects: A large majority of Britons distrust both David Cameron and Nigel Farage when it comes to the EU: #ITVEURef
Net Distrust:
Cameron: -49
Farage: -41
So since its a mistake by REMAIN, I expect you'll be pleased to see it continue
https://twitter.com/craigawoodhouse/status/740509577213546496
By the way, the BHS evidence is quite astonishing, isn't it? Theft, murder threats - "unnacceptable face of capitalism" doesn't begin to cover it. It would get rejected as implausible in a mini-TV series.
a) > 50% a momentum argument
b) exactly 50% it is an unbiased coin with no memory
c) < 50% a reversion to the mean argument
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/10699637/EU-citizenship-for-sale-to-non-Europeans-in-Bulgaria-for-as-little-as-150000.html
Perhaps you're ignorant of the economic concept of Opportunity Cost but it is very real.
When it comes to politicians: liars win. At least for while.
I appreciate that those who want to puff out their chests, smear themselves in woad and ride chariots with blades mounted in the wheels won't care for the phrase. That is not the intended audience.
I'm not sure Joe Public has anything like the concern for "Britain's place in the world" that some of the leading "Remain" campaigners have (Labour "Remain" campaigners are especially fond of banging on with that line, I've noticed).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/10699637/EU-citizenship-for-sale-to-non-Europeans-in-Bulgaria-for-as-little-as-150000.html Followed by UKIP holding the balance of power in 2020....
I was unaware of the etymology of the phrase, and knowing it doesn't make it sound any less contemptuous.
Mr. 86, jein. Get Farage to do the dirty work. He likes it, and it keeps Boris and Gove clean. Everyone's a winner, except for Cameron.
The Leavers are strange bedfellows (as are Remainers) and if they win, some of them are going to be very, very angry indeed at what happens next
A win either way by 200K whether they do or do not reopen registration has got "we wuz robbed" echoing down the decades written all over it, and will infect the body politic very badly.
This is the problem for 21st century politicians, we get to record their every utterance and (collectively) remember it and use it to weigh them in the balance.
I just wonder (like most on here, and aside from the obvious control of borders issue) about the political practicalities of re-entry into an EU acronym having just voted to leave one.
Is it mentioned anywhere on VLTC for example?
You do NOT get 1% of the population registering to vote on the last permissible day. - Unless you have bots doing it automatically.
I note that one of the key persuadable groups is Eurosceptic Conservative voters who don't like Nigel Farage. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is connected to them.
[Just mentioning it in case Mr. Meeks replies to my post and wonders why I'm not responding].
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/08/race-baiting-farage-questioner-itv-invited-black-podcast/
This is the moral hazard Dave now wants to play with, what happens when he realises they haven't voted on time becasue they were still down the pub or forgot.
And the chances of heads rolling at the elctoral commission - zero.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/irish-farmers-brexit-would-endanger-cap-payments-and-44bn-of-exports-738996.html
Bonkers....
Thing is she almost certainly spoke Ancient British and so if she was anything that could be culturally laid claim to after 2000 odd years she's Welsh. I'm sure the old lass would've been livid at the thought of being called a "little Englander" not that the phrase would've meant anything to her given the entire concept of anybody being "englisc" lay at least 400 years in the future.
Retreats to pedant's corner.
a) There is a (1/2)^6 = 1/64 chance of each of the first 94 coins being the first of a run of 6 or more heads (and no chance of the last 6 coins being such).
So there's a 63/64 chance of each of the first 94 coins not being the first of a run of 6 or more heads.
So the total chance of none of the coins being the first of a run of 6 is (63/64)^94 = 0.228.
So the chance of there being a run 6 or more heads is 1 - 0.228 = 0.772.
So the chance is significantly greater than evens that at least one run of at least 6 coins will appear when using an unbiased coin. So, no, you can't conclude anything about the bias of the coin.
"Remain in the EU and the world is your lobster"
Are you sure the coin is unbiased? (^_-)
A more reasonable and true example is as follows, however...
One night in 1913, at the roulette wheel in Monte Carlo, black came up 26 times in a row. The house won millions with punters betting on red [argument c)], and maybe a few betting on black for the 27th spin [argument a)].
26 blacks in a row! About 68,411,591 to 1 against. Impossible, or at least highly unlikely.
Yes, for that particular table.
However, when all spins on all roulette wheels in the history of the world are considered, it's entirely unremarkable. You would only need about 500 million spins to have heard on one such run of 26 blacks, and I don't think we've heard of another...
@IanDunt: Last night Farage cited report showing "marginal loss" to UK economy from migration.It's nowhere to be seen https://t.co/KYqau9rt2d