#politicslive

[Somethingfishy]

Its not though. No doubt there are middle aged people slowly becoming more right wing.

But in the context of the Brexit debate, the young vote remain (75%) and those that are dying off vote to leave (75%)

It not only matters, its crucial to how this will play out, neither party can afford to ignore the demographics and the reality if they get this wrong (if you are in any doubt, see Lib Dem vote)

You have to remember..the people that voted leave were also the ones who voted yes to join the EEC and get us into Europe in the first place...my parents generation. These people have seen how it has morphed into what it has and in general it wasn't what they signed up for. My mum certainly thinks that. The young will do well to remember that this generation have lived a good deal of their lives seeing the EU in action and to disregard their reasons is incredibly disrespectful and naive.
This change in mind is symptomatic of peoples views changing as they get older. Just look at any voting pattern for an election over many years. It must happen.

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't think I've explained myself very well.

What you are talking about happens over a period of years. This is a short timescale compared to that (though it seems much longer!)

Thats why it absolutely matters

[Caballo]

The article I linked - although an opinion piece (and I also chuckled at the same thing Darthlaw did) was mainly about the demographic shift, which is undeniable. Old people are dying, and young people are coming of age.

And everyone in the middle is getting older. What's that saying, If you're not a socialist a 20 you've got no heart, if you're still one at forty, you've got no brain.

[Somethingfishy]

I don't think I've explained myself very well.

What you are talking about happens over a period of years. This is a short timescale compared to that (though it seems much longer!)

Thats why it absolutely matters

Yes i do see your point. The theory though is that as leavers die remainers come of age and over time remainers will become the main force. What i am saying is that it is forgetting that people in the middle may well have changed their opinion in the time between the referendum and now. It is just on a narrower timescale. That was the point Andrew Neill made when confronting Vince Cable on his retweet. A very ill advised one for a party leader. Certainly doesn't come across well whether you believe the theory or not...especially for a man of his age

[Lancasterclaret]

Again, its the time scale that is the key.

Its pretty simple this one. More voters are going to vote for remain because they are younger, and less voters are going to vote for leave as they are dead. (sorry if it sounds a bit morbid!)

You are effectively trying to deny that the sun comes up in the morning with this one.

[Lancasterclaret]

Well there are always going to be people who change their minds.

I have no problem with that, but as my concerns are 80% economic/20% rise of extremism with this I won't be one of them.

But I accept that the ideal scenario is a deal.

[Somethingfishy]

Again, its the time scale that is the key.

Its pretty simple this one. More voters are going to vote for remain because they are younger, and less voters are going to vote for leave as they are dead. (sorry if it sounds a bit morbid!)

You are effectively trying to deny that the sun comes up in the morning with this one.

I am not particular wanting to get into a daft debate about this to be honest but again i will say it is all relative..the timescale is actually irrelevant. The only thing that will change it is if the amount of young getting to voting age (and being remainers) is abnormally high or old people start dying at a quicker rate. I really don't see how you can't see that.
The issues are more reactive i would admit. It is all very at the moment and a lot of people can suddenly be swayed one way or the other. Maybe fed up of Mays incompetence, worried about No deal..seeing the EU as being very unco-operative and bullying. All issues that can change people. The demographics are remarkably similar to how it works in elections. It can't be denied. It really isn't just as simple as one end is tipping up and the other end going down. The middle shifts.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yes it does, but its the timescale (and I don't want to argue over this either!)

Example - Say there are 2 million more young people, about 2 million less old people. There are not 2 million people in the middle who changed their mind inbetween 2016-2019.

[Somethingfishy]

Yes it does, but its the timescale (and I don't want to argue over this either!)

Example - Say there are 2 million more young people, about 2 million less old people. There are not 2 million people in the middle who changed their mind inbetween 2016-2019.

So by the same token Labour should walk the next election as the figures suggest 2 million more Labour voters and 2 million less Tories since the last election. We know that won't happen...because it really isn't that simplistic.

[Lancasterclaret]

It is with Brexit mate!

Brexit crosses party lines. Thats why its relevant!

[AndrewJB]

We are leaving the EU. Fine. But can I ask, do those who want to remain have to give up their EU citizenship? We should strike a deal in which those who want to - and I realise it will be a minority - can retain their EU citizenship. I can't imagine how any leavers would have a problem with that.

[Somethingfishy]

We are leaving the EU. Fine. But can I ask, do those who want to remain have to give up their EU citizenship? We should strike a deal in which those who want to - and I realise it will be a minority - can retain their EU citizenship. I can't imagine how any leavers would have a problem with that.

I would imagine a lot of leavers would prefer to keep it if they could too to be honest.

[Lancasterclaret]

Keeping it without being in it isn't going to happen sadly.

We are just going to have to hope that the power of the blue passport is still strong! :-0

[Damo]

When Polly Toynbee's "Brexiteers are becoming extinct" nonsense is taken as a rational argument, you just know that people have well and truly lost the plot

[Taffy on the wing]

And everyone in the middle is getting older. What's that saying, If you're not a socialist a 20 you've got no heart, if you're still one at forty, you've got no brain.

SUCH a boring old cliché....I suppose you also believe in 'trickle down theory'!

[Lancasterclaret]

Its not an argument Damo.

Its fact.

Thats the problem here. I get why you don't want to accept it but the reality is that remain is getting stronger. That alone should be enough to ensure there is a No deal.

[Imploding Turtle]

When Polly Toynbee's "Brexiteers are becoming extinct" nonsense is taken as a rational argument, you just know that people have well and truly lost the plot

Did you fabricate that quote as well?

[Damo]

If remain is gaining in popularity, it's nothing to do with old people dying. It's down to people losing their nerve.
Stop being silly

[Damo]

Did you fabricate that quote as well?

Welcome back again Charlie

[Lancasterclaret]

Come off it Damo, its not "losing their nerve"

Its recognising reality.

You are watching QT - the economic bloke just absolute nailed the reality of a "No Deal"

[HunterST_BFC]

Diane Abbott is so stupid - why is she being allowed on Question Time?

She's getting pulled apart.
Is she ill again???

[Damo]

Come off it Damo, its not "losing their nerve"

Its recognising reality.

You are watching QT - the economic bloke just absolute nailed thr reality of a "No Deal"

No pal. I'm at work. I'll see if I can get it iPlayer tomorrow

[Imploding Turtle]

*tee-hee*

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-tweet ... s-11609810" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[aggi]

And everyone in the middle is getting older. What's that saying, If you're not a socialist a 20 you've got no heart, if you're still one at forty, you've got no brain.

I discussed this with Ringo previously. He struggled a bit with how to categorise the genius socialist Stephen Hawking ...

[Lancasterclaret]

Ah sorry, cos you liked a tweet I assumed you were watching it.

Its Diane Abbott gold at the moment!

[Imploding Turtle]

Welcome back again Charlie

Is that a 'yes'?

I could just call it a 'yes' and claim you said it. I can call that move The Damo Deception.

[Damo]

I liked it because it painted a picture of a familiar image

[Damo]

Is that a 'yes'?

I could just call it a 'yes' and claim you said it. I can call that move The Damo Deception.

If that makes you happy mate, be my guest

[aggi]

The demographic thing i find a bit of a red herring to be honest. As Andrew Neill pointed out... about middle age opinions often change. This is why younger people often vote Labour and older ones Conservative. This has been the case for a long while and so it must have happened that as the young got older their voting habits changed. The reasons are most likely due to accumulation of wealth and general life experience. Some people obviously stay affiliated all their lives..often upbringing and parental affiliation come into play. The same can be said of Brexit although it is obviously a shorter term thing.
It wouldn't come to pass if Brexit was a 50 year thing that eventually everyone would more or less be a remainer. It just doesn't work like that.

It's interesting in terms of Brexit this one.

My personal suspicion is that, because Brexit is a single issue and the timescale is relatively short, those middle people probably won't have changed their mind. As such, the vote probably would change (although not to the absolute level some are suggesting).

[Imploding Turtle]

I've just read that Bercow's going to be the first Speaker of the House in 230 years not to get a peerage, because Theresa May is mad at him.

This seems incredibly petty.

[joey13]

Diane Abbott is so stupid - why is she being allowed on Question Time?

She's getting pulled apart.
Is she ill again???

She’s not getting pulled apart , you are just following the populist opinion and seeing something that isn’t there, try thinking for yourself

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm a lefty, and she's getting pulled apart.

Not easy a position to be in defending Labour at the moment but still.

[HunterST_BFC]

She’s not getting pulled apart , you are just following the populist opinion and seeing something that isn’t there, try thinking for yourself

Trust me I'm left.

Abbott should not be out there..........

She thinks so slowly her feet think its still last Monday

[Lancasterclaret]

One of my issues with Corbyn is his inability to see that Abbott is a vote loser. A big one.

[HunterST_BFC]

Feck me Abbott talking about diet and climate change..........

This is surely a comedy

[dsr]

Yes it does, but its the timescale (and I don't want to argue over this either!)

Example - Say there are 2 million more young people, about 2 million less old people. There are not 2 million people in the middle who changed their mind inbetween 2016-2019.

Two major flaws in your analysis that make it complete nonsense. Here's the first.

Original vote: 17.41m Leave, 16.14m Remain.

Add the 2m new young voters, which if they vote the same way would mean 930,000 more remain votes, 350,000 more leave votes, and 720,000 more abstentions. So the new total is 17.76m Leave, 17.07m Remain.

Then add in the 2m fewer old voters, which if they vote the same way would mean 1,100,000 fewer leave votes, 700,000 fewer remain votes, and 200,000 fewer abstentions. So the new total now is 16.66m Leave, 16.37m Remain.

The swing is less than a million - Leave still wins.

But that's not your arithmetic flaw. Where you go wrong is thinking that 2m people need to change their minds - but if 2m change, then the new total would be 18.66m Leave, 14.37m Remain - decisive enough that the most ardent remainer wouldn't be able to quibble.

But actually, the number of people who would have to change their mind, using these figures, to get the same percentage voting for Brexit second time around, would be 480,000. Not quite so unreachable.

[Quickenthetempo]

I enjoyed Question time and watched the last 40 minutes or so. Normally I switch over as the panel just argue like mad with each other and not answer any questions.

[dsr]

I don't think I've explained myself very well.

What you are talking about happens over a period of years. This is a short timescale compared to that (though it seems much longer!)

Thats why it absolutely matters

But the other major flaw is in your logic, and I see why you don't want to argue it. You say that in two years, there isn't enough time for people to change their mind, so over a two year period there is certain to be a swing towards Remain; in a longer period, eg. 40 years, there can be a swing to Leave as there was between 1974 and 2016.

A forty year period is made up of 20 two-year periods. Every one of those two year periods, by your argument, is too short for a people to change their minds - there is a guaranteed swing to Remain. So for 20 consecutive periods we get a swing to Remain, but then at the end there has been a swing to Leave? That doesn't work under any arithmetic.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I saw the discussion about age groups thanks to Toynbee.

The bit that people don’t understand is the age distribution. That’s something I have to design a lot in healthcare, to show the impact of an aging population - as a bigger chunk of people each year are in the older age groups, and they are more likely to get sick, it costs the state money.

It’s the same with voting Leave because the older people are, the more likely they are to have socially conservative, pro sovereignty views. There is a higher percentage at the upper end of the age distribution compared to 2016, so it means Leave have an advantage, not Remain.

There are bigger variables of course. What’s going on in the circus in the Commons and in Brussels will be swaying people more. I don’t have the foggiest who would win, I suspect Leave would but cannot be sure, but I do know the offensive Toynbee was talking nonsense.

[dsr]

I've just read that Bercow's going to be the first Speaker of the House in 230 years not to get a peerage, because Theresa May is mad at him.

This seems incredibly petty.

Bercow has been incompetent and bigoted for a lot longer than the Brexit debate has been going on. He should have been canned years ago.

Perhaps he's not going to get a peerage because of incompetence and bigotry - there is probably enough of those qualities in the Lords already!

[Imploding Turtle]

Two major flaws in your analysis that make it complete nonsense. Here's the first.

Original vote: 17.41m Leave, 16.14m Remain.

Add the 2m new young voters, which if they vote the same way would mean 930,000 more remain votes, 350,000 more leave votes, and 720,000 more abstentions. So the new total is 17.76m Leave, 17.07m Remain.

Then add in the 2m fewer old voters, which if they vote the same way would mean 1,100,000 fewer leave votes, 700,000 fewer remain votes, and 200,000 fewer abstentions. So the new total now is 16.66m Leave, 16.37m Remain.

The swing is less than a million - Leave still wins.

But that's not your arithmetic flaw. Where you go wrong is thinking that 2m people need to change their minds - but if 2m change, then the new total would be 18.66m Leave, 14.37m Remain - decisive enough that the most ardent remainer wouldn't be able to quibble.

But actually, the number of people who would have to change their mind, using these figures, to get the same percentage voting for Brexit second time around, would be 480,000. Not quite so unreachable.

Based on 2m more young (18-24 )and 2m fewer old people (65+) and based on young people turnout of 64% and 90% for the old people the net gain for remain would be

Ages 18-24 (64% turnout, 71-29 split for Remain):
908,800 more Remain voters
371,200 more Leave voters
Net gain of 537,600 remain votes

Ages 65+ (90% turnout, 64-36 split for Leave):
1,152,000 fewer Leave voters
648,000 fewer Remain voters
Net loss of 504,000 Leave votes

Overall a net gain of 1,041,600 votes for Remain
The difference last time was 1,269,501, based purely on these numbers that difference would shrink to 227,901 (not 290,000)

Trying to figure out someone who works in accounting could be as wrong as you i noticed that we both used the same turnout figures but for some reason you rounded down the number of Leave votes that would be lost in the 65+ bracket, and rounded up the votes lost by Remain. And it cant' be explained by you just doing normal rounding approximations because you rounded in the wrong direction. 648,000 rounds to 600k not 700k, and 1,152,000 rounds to 1,200k not 1,100k, as you well know. So why do it?

Anyway, the swing is actually over one million. Leave still wins though, but it's only a matter of time before based on everyone who voted last time voting the same way, and the addition of new and subtraction of dead voters at the same rates means we won't have to wait long before the arithmetic gives Remain the edge. Months, not years.
And when you consider that it would take a year for a new referendum to be carried out i think it's safe to say there's definitely a mandate for a new vote. Ad to the argument all the polls over the last 30 months showing a consistent trend towards Remain too and it can be argued quite easily that without another vote then leaving the EU, when we eventually do, probably isn't the will of the people any more.

[dsr]

Based on 2m more young (18-24 )and 2m fewer old people (65+) and based on young people turnout of 64% and 90% for the old people the net gain for remain would be

Ages 18-24 (64% turnout, 71-29 split for Remain):
908,800 more Remain voters
371,200 more Leave voters
Net gain of 537,600 remain votes

Ages 65+ (90% turnout, 64-36 split for Leave):
1,152,000 fewer Leave voters
648,000 fewer Remain voters
Net loss of 504,000 Leave votes

Overall a net gain of 1,041,600 votes for Remain
The difference last time was 1,269,501, based purely on these numbers that difference would shrink to 227,901 (not 290,000)

Trying to figure out someone who works in accounting could be as wrong as you i noticed that we both used the same turnout figures but for some reason you rounded down the number of Leave votes that would be lost in the 65+ bracket, and rounded up the votes lost by Remain. And it cant' be explained by you just doing normal rounding approximations because you rounded in the wrong direction. 648,000 rounds to 600k not 700k, and 1,152,000 rounds to 1,200k not 1,100k, as you well know. So why do it?

Anyway, the swing is actually over one million. Leave still wins though, but it's only a matter of time before based on everyone who voted last time voting the same way, and the addition of new and subtraction of dead voters at the same rates means we won't have to wait long before the arithmetic gives Remain the edge. Months, not years.
And when you consider that it would take a year for a new referendum to be carried out i think it's safe to say there's definitely a mandate for a new vote. Ad to the argument all the polls over the last 30 months showing a consistent trend towards Remain too and it can be argued quite easily that without another vote then leaving the EU, when we eventually do, probably isn't the will of the people any more.

Well, if you'd posted sooner that you knew the exact turnout and voting figures, and that all other sources on the internet were wrong, I would obviously have used your numbers. But since you were 'on holiday', you couldn't so I had to make do with a (presumably) less scientific average of three other sources.

I think perhaps you are still suffering from believing yourself always to be right. I used figures of 27% young people voting leave, based on average of three figures of 25,28,29; and 81% old people voting leave, based on figures of 61/59/64. Obviously you used the third figure and you believe that you can prove beyond doubt that anyone who doesn't use those is deliberately misleading. Because clearly, you won't consider that there can be two opinions on the accuracy of opinion polls; you have your opinion, and therefore you assume that all other opinions are wrong or lying.

Incidentally, I'm not sure you're right to assume that Lancaster's figures of 2,000,000 new voters and 2,000,000 were exact figures. You can check with him, of course, but I suspect they were round-number approximations. In any case, the point of the whole thing was to prove that Lancaster's arithmetic doesn't add up, which I think we have both done.

[Imploding Turtle]

Well, if you'd posted sooner that you knew the exact turnout and voting figures, and that all other sources on the internet were wrong, I would obviously have used your numbers. But since you were 'on holiday', you couldn't so I had to make do with a (presumably) less scientific average of three other sources.

I think perhaps you are still suffering from believing yourself always to be right. I used figures of 27% young people voting leave, based on average of three figures of 25,28,29; and 81% old people voting leave, based on figures of 61/59/64. Obviously you used the third figure and you believe that you can prove beyond doubt that anyone who doesn't use those is deliberately misleading. Because clearly, you won't consider that there can be two opinions on the accuracy of opinion polls; you have your opinion, and therefore you assume that all other opinions are wrong or lying.

Incidentally, I'm not sure you're right to assume that Lancaster's figures of 2,000,000 new voters and 2,000,000 were exact figures. You can check with him, of course, but I suspect they were round-number approximations. In any case, the point of the whole thing was to prove that Lancaster's arithmetic doesn't add up, which I think we have both done.

I'm quite certain that the 2m figures aren't exact figures, but they were good enough for you so it's kinda weird that you're criticising me for assuming for the sake of argument the very same thing you assumed for the sake of argument. But, alas, i expect little else.

[Lancasterclaret]

Biggest worry for leavers yet on QT last night.

Diane Abbott reckons leave would win a 2nd vote.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

[Guich]

She's not the only one Lancs, but in her case it's almost certainly a wild guess.

[claretonthecoast1882]

She also claimed all of us are eating healthier.

As well as having no intelligence she has no mirrors either it would seem.

[Lancasterclaret]

Crikey boys, I thought it was a really obvious gag

If this is what Brexit does to people then I'm out.

[Guich]

Just on the argument that old people dying and young people becoming eligible to vote would increase the remain vote:

Were it that simple, surely there becomes a period when the Remain votes translate to Leave votes at 27, 37 or 47 maybe? I accept there is greater mobilisation of very young voters through social media and education at college urging them to vote, though young people don't always do as they are told.

Assuming the Leave vote is either old or not too bright is fraught with danger. I was listening to a Radio 5 discussion from Birmingham University the other day and they had a selection of students, some Leave and some Remain. One poor girl who supports Remain was pleasantly surprised that her home town of Sunderland voted 70 per cent Remain, until her tutor broke the news it was 70 per cent Leave.

Speaking as someone in the middle, to suggest that young people are generally usually better informed than old people, is hugely naïve and illogical.

[Guich]

Crikey boys, I thought it was a really obvious gag

If this is what Brexit does to people then I'm out.

You're right Lancs - it's a bit early and I'm avoiding work

[Lancasterclaret]

No one is suggesting that.

All I saying is that about 3/4 of young people vote remain and about 3/4 of old people vote leave. Thats what the polls say.

Its not exactly rocket science to work out from that demographics have a part to play.