Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Mr Linn debating on the 'leave' side here tonight.

G

In the New York Times today it was noted that the British polls are showing yes votes on Brexit closing in on the no votes. Your bookies on the other hand are still showing a 70% chance you'll stay in the EU. The Times opined that the bookies were likely the better bet.

Clay Bingham posted:

In the New York Times today it was noted that the British polls are showing yes votes on Brexit closing in on the no votes. Your bookies on the other hand are still showing a 70% chance you'll stay in the EU. The Times opined that the bookies were likely the better bet.

I think research shows that historically they always have been.

G

Graemah

So true. With large amounts of money ar stake, the focus is on facts not opinion, personal philosophy, or wishful thinking.

I really need to stop thinking about this but if you will indulge me one final interference, there is an excellent opinion piece this very moment on the New York Times webpage wriiten by Roger Cohen and titled "Europe and the Unthinkable". I'm of that certain age where it speaks very strongly to my concern with a possible Brexit.

GraemeH posted:

Clay Bingham posted:

In the New York Times today it was noted that the British polls are showing yes votes on Brexit closing in on the no votes. Your bookies on the other hand are still showing a 70% chance you'll stay in the EU. The Times opined that the bookies were likely the better bet.

I think research shows that historically they always have been.

G

I heard a potted version of this on the World Service last year:

"Three years ago Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams of Nottingham Business School, who researches both gambling and political forecasting, published an interesting paper which suggested that bookmakers have long held an edge over both opinion polls and expert opinion when it comes to predictive power.

His research, drawing on betting records, showed that in all the US Presidential elections between 1868 and 1940, the era before opinion polls, only once did the candidate who was favourite in the betting a month before the poll fail to win the election.

Since then, despite the arrival of the opinion polls and the much greater media interest that is customarily accorded to them, in almost every fair contest the betting markets have comfortably outshone all competitors in the predictive business. In 2004, one of the two main predictive exchanges that are allowed to take political bets in the United States, “went stratospheric in predictive accuracy”, according to Prof Vaughan Williams, by predicting the winner in every single state while a number of pollsters and pundits continued to favour Kerry over Bush right up until polling day.

“Just think if you had an accumulator bet on that!” Prof Vaughan Williams enthused last week, as we chewed over the odds before the result was known. In his ranking of methodologies, Prof Vaughan Williams puts the betting exchanges at the top and, gratifyingly for another long held prejudice of mine, econometric models at the bottom. He believes that Betfair and other exchanges which do not limit the amount that can be wagered on political outcomes, as happens in the United States, are potentially more accurate as a result. The heavier the bet, the greater its predictive power.

There are good reasons why, absent manipulation, betting odds should often do so well. Unlike say the Grand National, general elections have very few potential winners and the odds are ultimately set by those with superior professional knowledge – which means principally those who have access to detailed information on the ground, such as canvas returns.

With opinion polls, however, there is the permanent problem that those invited to offer an opinion are not selected because they are likely to know something; an opinion poll has to be random to be statistically valid. At the same time, there is no penalty for giving an inaccurate or false reply.

Taken collectively, the opinion polls in a general election are often accurate within their margins of error about the percentage of votes cast. Translating that into seats won requires more specialist or local knowledge than a simple read across, assuming a uniform national swing, allows. This is the other main reason that the results derived from the polls by the media and the general public are so often misguided – the obvious question being why, if this is now so well known, misinterpretation continues to leave money on the table for those who know how to read the runes more accurately. Even the most contrarian of investors should rarely bet against the oddmakers."

Jonathan Davis @ independent-investor.com

G

GraemeH posted:

GraemeH posted:

Clay Bingham posted:

In the New York Times today it was noted that the British polls are showing yes votes on Brexit closing in on the no votes. Your bookies on the other hand are still showing a 70% chance you'll stay in the EU. The Times opined that the bookies were likely the better bet.

I think research shows that historically they always have been.

G

I heard a potted version of this on the World Service last year:

"Three years ago Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams of Nottingham Business School, who researches both gambling and political forecasting, published an interesting paper which suggested that..................................

.....................even the most contrarian of investors should rarely bet against the oddmakers."

Jonathan Davis @ independent-investor.com

G

I wouldn't bet my entire life savings on this analysis, (Nigel Farage is giving a pretty convincing argument in favour of Leaving IMHO, even if Boris has completely lost it !), but it does have an element of persuasion about it.

GraemeH posted:

GraemeH posted:

Clay Bingham posted:

In the New York Times today it was noted that the British polls are showing yes votes on Brexit closing in on the no votes. Your bookies on the other hand are still showing a 70% chance you'll stay in the EU. The Times opined that the bookies were likely the better bet.

I think research shows that historically they always have been.

G

I heard a potted version of this on the World Service last year:

"Three years ago Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams of Nottingham Business School, who researches both gambling and political forecasting, published an interesting paper which suggested that bookmakers have long held an edge over both opinion polls and expert opinion when it comes to predictive power.

Surely odds offered by bookmakers are the result of an opinion poll, the opinions of the gambling public.

The odds on a particular football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party winning are determined by the number of people betting on the football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party. High number equals poor odds, low number equals better odds.

fatcat posted:

GraemeH posted:

GraemeH posted:

Clay Bingham posted:

In the New York Times today it was noted that the British polls are showing yes votes on Brexit closing in on the no votes. Your bookies on the other hand are still showing a 70% chance you'll stay in the EU. The Times opined that the bookies were likely the better bet.

I think research shows that historically they always have been.

G

I heard a potted version of this on the World Service last year:

"Three years ago Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams of Nottingham Business School, who researches both gambling and political forecasting, published an interesting paper which suggested that bookmakers have long held an edge over both opinion polls and expert opinion when it comes to predictive power.

Surely odds offered by bookmakers are the result of an opinion poll, the opinions of the gambling public.

The odds on a particular football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party winning are determined by the number of people betting on the football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party. High number equals poor odds, low number equals better odds.

I thought the essential point was that with the bookies, punters are taking a positive decision and putting their money where their mouth is, which gives a stronger indicator of likely outcome, whereas in opinion polls the people are asked at random and what they chose to tell the pollster is completely cost-free so much less reliable.

MDS posted:

fatcat posted:

GraemeH posted:

GraemeH posted:

Clay Bingham posted:

In the New York Times today it was noted that the British polls are showing yes votes on Brexit closing in on the no votes. Your bookies on the other hand are still showing a 70% chance you'll stay in the EU. The Times opined that the bookies were likely the better bet.

I think research shows that historically they always have been.

G

I heard a potted version of this on the World Service last year:

"Three years ago Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams of Nottingham Business School, who researches both gambling and political forecasting, published an interesting paper which suggested that bookmakers have long held an edge over both opinion polls and expert opinion when it comes to predictive power.

Surely odds offered by bookmakers are the result of an opinion poll, the opinions of the gambling public.

The odds on a particular football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party winning are determined by the number of people betting on the football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party. High number equals poor odds, low number equals better odds.

I thought the essential point was that with the bookies, punters are taking a positive decision and putting their money where their mouth is, which gives a stronger indicator of likely outcome, whereas in opinion polls the people are asked at random and what they chose to tell the pollster is completely cost-free so much less reliable.

That's my understanding too.

G

GraemeH posted:

MDS posted:

fatcat posted:

GraemeH posted:

GraemeH posted:

Clay Bingham posted:

In the New York Times today it was noted that the British polls are showing yes votes on Brexit closing in on the no votes. Your bookies on the other hand are still showing a 70% chance you'll stay in the EU. The Times opined that the bookies were likely the better bet.

I think research shows that historically they always have been.

G

I heard a potted version of this on the World Service last year:

"Three years ago Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams of Nottingham Business School, who researches both gambling and political forecasting, published an interesting paper which suggested that bookmakers have long held an edge over both opinion polls and expert opinion when it comes to predictive power.

Surely odds offered by bookmakers are the result of an opinion poll, the opinions of the gambling public.

The odds on a particular football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party winning are determined by the number of people betting on the football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party. High number equals poor odds, low number equals better odds.

I thought the essential point was that with the bookies, punters are taking a positive decision and putting their money where their mouth is, which gives a stronger indicator of likely outcome, whereas in opinion polls the people are asked at random and what they chose to tell the pollster is completely cost-free so much less reliable.

That's my understanding too.

G

Doesn't always work, especially in the East Midlands around Leicester.............

Don Atkinson posted:

I wouldn't bet my entire life savings on this analysis, (Nigel Farage is giving a pretty convincing argument in favour of Leaving IMHO, even if Boris has completely lost it !), but it does have an element of persuasion about it.

Also I happened to ask today my 19 year old son and 22 year old daughter which way they were thinking of voting expecting a resounding remain - and they both said out - this surprised  me given all the 'young people' hype you hear from the westminster bubble - and when I queried further they said  they didn't know of any of their friends who were voting remain. I said surely there must be one - and I got shrugged shoulders - and then later the house phone went and my daughter picked it and was asked for and it was a poll survey... to which my daughter said undecided - she later told me she is getting pestered by polls and she refuses to say her intent and so simply says to them undecided...

GraemeH posted:

MDS posted:

fatcat posted:

GraemeH posted:

GraemeH posted:

Clay Bingham posted:

In the New York Times today it was noted that the British polls are showing yes votes on Brexit closing in on the no votes. Your bookies on the other hand are still showing a 70% chance you'll stay in the EU. The Times opined that the bookies were likely the better bet.

I think research shows that historically they always have been.

G

I heard a potted version of this on the World Service last year:

"Three years ago Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams of Nottingham Business School, who researches both gambling and political forecasting, published an interesting paper which suggested that bookmakers have long held an edge over both opinion polls and expert opinion when it comes to predictive power.

Surely odds offered by bookmakers are the result of an opinion poll, the opinions of the gambling public.

The odds on a particular football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party winning are determined by the number of people betting on the football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party. High number equals poor odds, low number equals better odds.

I thought the essential point was that with the bookies, punters are taking a positive decision and putting their money where their mouth is, which gives a stronger indicator of likely outcome, whereas in opinion polls the people are asked at random and what they chose to tell the pollster is completely cost-free so much less reliable.

That's my understanding too.

G

I’m not understanding why you would think that.

 The gambling public don’t bet on the side they are voting for, they bet on the side they THINK will win.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I wouldn't bet my entire life savings on this analysis, (Nigel Farage is giving a pretty convincing argument in favour of Leaving IMHO, even if Boris has completely lost it !), but it does have an element of persuasion about it.

Also I happened to ask today my 19 year old son and 22 year old daughter which way they were thinking of voting expecting a resounding remain - and they both said out - this surprised  me given all the 'young people' hype you hear from the westminster bubble - and when I queried further they said  they didn't know of any of their friends who were voting remain. I said surely there must be one - and I got shrugged shoulders - and then later the house phone went and my daughter picked it and was asked for and it was a poll survey... to which my daughter said undecided - she later told me she is getting pestered by polls and she refuses to say her intent and so simply says to them undecided...

I’m surprised you didn’t know or have an inkling about which way they would be voting. Don’t you discuss such things as politics with them?

not usually, no... we don't tend to talk politics within the family especially with the kids - as they usually prefer not to...,  i had a slight inkling about my son but my inkling for my daughter was wrong.. when i have tended to talk politics with my parents it often gets quite heated .. so after a while i prefer not to    we are obviously not good debaters as we let emotions get in the way within our family..

We are all right-thinking Guardian reading, Labour voting Europhiles in this house, which makes life easier, though we are all rather vexed at the way things seem to be going, with people seeming to be taken in by a pack of lies trotted out repeatedly by self interested idiots. Ah well. We have our I'm In poster in the window, which is causing angst amongst our Brexit neighbours...

Well my daughter and Mrs SinS voted Labour at the large election, but that appears to drive a strong negative EU stance in them. The only labour supporting friends I know and that I am aware who are voting remain are all teachers and one horticulturalist ... the rest, both red and blue seem to be wanting leave.

fatcat posted:

GraemeH posted:

MDS posted:

fatcat posted:

GraemeH posted:

GraemeH posted:

Clay Bingham posted:

In the New York Times today it was noted that the British polls are showing yes votes on Brexit closing in on the no votes. Your bookies on the other hand are still showing a 70% chance you'll stay in the EU. The Times opined that the bookies were likely the better bet.

I think research shows that historically they always have been.

G

I heard a potted version of this on the World Service last year:

"Three years ago Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams of Nottingham Business School, who researches both gambling and political forecasting, published an interesting paper which suggested that bookmakers have long held an edge over both opinion polls and expert opinion when it comes to predictive power.

Surely odds offered by bookmakers are the result of an opinion poll, the opinions of the gambling public.

The odds on a particular football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party winning are determined by the number of people betting on the football team, tennis player, cyclist or political party. High number equals poor odds, low number equals better odds.

I thought the essential point was that with the bookies, punters are taking a positive decision and putting their money where their mouth is, which gives a stronger indicator of likely outcome, whereas in opinion polls the people are asked at random and what they chose to tell the pollster is completely cost-free so much less reliable.

That's my understanding too.

G

I’m not understanding why you would think that.

 The gambling public don’t bet on the side they are voting for, they bet on the side they THINK will win.

This may be the case but it matters not in relation to the central argument. What the research shows is that betting odds have historically proven to be a more accurate prediction of election outcomes than polls.

G

I used to live in Belgium.  I speak a second European language (Flemish/Dutch).  These experiences have undoubtedly influenced how I perceive my identity and my place in the world.  I was born and bred in Luton, Bedfordshire and only moved to Todmorden a year ago.  By anybody's yardstick, I am British which of course is true - but I also see myself as European and that gives me a huge problem, because it is with a heavy heart that I have decided to vote to leave the EU.

The hypothetical situation of a Texan or a Californian voting in a referendum to leave the United States of America suggesting an inner conflict brought about by dual identities would be entirely possible, for Texans and Californians are also Americans and for me that conflict exists in my own thoughts.  For the first time in my life I am having to choose between one or the other and it is very painful for me.

It hurts to have made a decision like this, but I realise that the post-war, social Europe of brotherhood and solidarity died many years ago, replaced instead with a corporatist, neo-liberal racket run mostly by old white men who speak in shrill, authoritarian tones.  The ugly memories of how the democratically elected government of Greece was undermined by a man of, allegedly, the same political persuasion, demanding as he did in the forced privatisation of state held assets (when he himself nationalised a bank in the Netherlands, in violation of EU law on state aid) are now etched in my psyche.  And that is just one example of how far the EU has moved away from its founding principles.

That aside, I fear for the future.  What will remain will be a fractured and divided country whatever the result of the referendum on 23 June because no side will be able to demonstrate a resounding victory.  As a country, we will become ever more bitter and divided and any future prime minister, whoever it may be, will have the difficult job of trying to reunite us.  He or she will have a job on their hands - only today I was called a "Little Englander", simply because I expressed my desire for exit.  In all my years I have never seen such a poisonous and divisive atmosphere.

The issues are complex, hence my difficulty in coming to a conclusion.  In the end the only thing that I could do was to boil it down to the fundamentals: principles; values; ideals. For me, the fundamental principles are democracy, fairness, openness and transparency.  The EU has failed to satisfy me that they embody these principles and for this reason alone, I have reluctantly decided to vote to leave.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I wouldn't bet my entire life savings on this analysis, (Nigel Farage is giving a pretty convincing argument in favour of Leaving IMHO, even if Boris has completely lost it !), but it does have an element of persuasion about it.

Also I happened to ask today my 19 year old son and 22 year old daughter which way they were thinking of voting expecting a resounding remain - and they both said out - this surprised  me given all the 'young people' hype you hear from the westminster bubble - and when I queried further they said  they didn't know of any of their friends who were voting remain. I said surely there must be one - and I got shrugged shoulders - and then later the house phone went and my daughter picked it and was asked for and it was a poll survey... to which my daughter said undecided - she later told me she is getting pestered by polls and she refuses to say her intent and so simply says to them undecided...

Simon

I'm not surprised by your children at all. Pretty normal I'd say. They didn't live through WWII, they didn't live though the Cold War. If they're like most Americans, they don't pay much attention to history. They have known only good times relatively speaking. They look at the issue as sovereignty and home control. They really don't have any basis at all to worry about what could happen to a united europe were Britain to leave. They may not recognize that populist right wing parties are even now causing trouble in Europe and would cause more if Britain left. They may not worry  that Scotland would leave the union as most surely they would. To many in this world Putin is just another politician to them when in fact he is far from that and very good at seeing weakness. Your children's beliefs are based on all they've ever known and are, I'm sure, very typical of their generation and those beliefs make perfect sense from their perspective. I respect that but, deep down, Britain's  leaving fills me with dread.

ursus262 posted:

I  The ugly memories of how the democratically elected government of Greece was undermined by a man of, allegedly, the same political persuasion, demanding as he did in the forced privatisation of state held assets (when he himself nationalised a bank in the Netherlands, in violation of EU law on state aid) are now etched in my psyche.  And that is just one example of how far the EU has moved away from its founding principles.

This may be an over simplification but didn’t the democratically elected government of Greece, fiddle the books to gain entry into the EU.

 Make you wonder why so many democratically elected governments want to join the EU, yet we’re voting on whether to leave the EU.

fatcat posted:

ursus262 posted:

I  The ugly memories of how the democratically elected government of Greece was undermined by a man of, allegedly, the same political persuasion, demanding as he did in the forced privatisation of state held assets (when he himself nationalised a bank in the Netherlands, in violation of EU law on state aid) are now etched in my psyche.  And that is just one example of how far the EU has moved away from its founding principles.

This may be an over simplification but didn’t the democratically elected government of Greece, fiddle the books to gain entry into the EU.

 Make you wonder why so many democratically elected governments want to join the EU, yet we’re voting on whether to leave the EU.

Yes, they did.  They had been fiddling the books for years.  Ordinary people though are the ones who are paying the price.  Greece was admitted to the EU and subsequently the Euro.  Folly, yes, but folly on both sides.

ursus262 posted:

fatcat posted:

ursus262 posted:

I  The ugly memories of how the democratically elected government of Greece was undermined by a man of, allegedly, the same political persuasion, demanding as he did in the forced privatisation of state held assets (when he himself nationalised a bank in the Netherlands, in violation of EU law on state aid) are now etched in my psyche.  And that is just one example of how far the EU has moved away from its founding principles.

This may be an over simplification but didn’t the democratically elected government of Greece, fiddle the books to gain entry into the EU.

 Make you wonder why so many democratically elected governments want to join the EU, yet we’re voting on whether to leave the EU.

Yes, they did.  They had been fiddling the books for years.  Ordinary people though are the ones who are paying the price.  Greece was admitted to the EU and subsequently the Euro.  Folly, yes, but folly on both sides.

I bet they bitterly regret it now!

dayjay posted:

ursus262 posted:

fatcat posted:

ursus262 posted:

I  The ugly memories of how the democratically elected government of Greece was undermined by a man of, allegedly, the same political persuasion, demanding as he did in the forced privatisation of state held assets (when he himself nationalised a bank in the Netherlands, in violation of EU law on state aid) are now etched in my psyche.  And that is just one example of how far the EU has moved away from its founding principles.

This may be an over simplification but didn’t the democratically elected government of Greece, fiddle the books to gain entry into the EU.

 Make you wonder why so many democratically elected governments want to join the EU, yet we’re voting on whether to leave the EU.

Yes, they did.  They had been fiddling the books for years.  Ordinary people though are the ones who are paying the price.  Greece was admitted to the EU and subsequently the Euro.  Folly, yes, but folly on both sides.

I bet they bitterly regret it now!

Well, it all depends on who you are referring to.  The only people, I am sure, who are not bitterly regretting the past are the very rich within Greece.  The elites always look after themselves, and it's everyone else who are left to pick up the pieces.

Clay Bingham posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I wouldn't bet my entire life savings on this analysis, (Nigel Farage is giving a pretty convincing argument in favour of Leaving IMHO, even if Boris has completely lost it !), but it does have an element of persuasion about it.

Also I happened to ask today my 19 year old son and 22 year old daughter which way they were thinking of voting expecting a resounding remain - and they both said out - this surprised  me given all the 'young people' hype you hear from the westminster bubble - and when I queried further they said  they didn't know of any of their friends who were voting remain. I said surely there must be one - and I got shrugged shoulders - and then later the house phone went and my daughter picked it and was asked for and it was a poll survey... to which my daughter said undecided - she later told me she is getting pestered by polls and she refuses to say her intent and so simply says to them undecided...

Simon

 

I'm not surprised by your children at all. Pretty normal I'd say. They didn't live through WWII, they didn't live though the Cold War. If they're like most Americans, they don't pay much attention to history. They have known only good times relatively speaking. They look at the issue as sovereignty and home control. They really don't have any basis at all to worry about what could happen to a united europe were Britain to leave. They may not recognize that populist right wing parties are even now causing trouble in Europe and would cause more if Britain left. They may not worry  that Scotland would leave the union as most surely they would. To many in this world Putin is just another politician to them when in fact he is far from that and very good at seeing weakness. Your children's beliefs are based on all they've ever known and are, I'm sure, very typical of their generation and those beliefs make perfect sense from their perspective. I respect that but, deep down, Britain's  leaving fills me with dread.

Some good arguments made there, Clay.  I will vote to remain, mainly because of economic reasons. However last week I spent a day wandering around the Imperial War Museum in London. The causes and consequences of the WWI and WWII were evident and sobering. The much more recent conflict in the Balkans and the Cold War were also featured. During the day my mind wandered back to the EU referendum a number of times. I suspect many people will have forgotten why the EU was formed in the first place.