Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24. (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)
Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'
Agree: 47 Disagree: 24
And among Con voters its 60: 20
You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....
The daily mail states it as "it would be humiliating". That's not nearly what the question asks, like the other questions, it's a gross misrepresentation of the data. On several of the questions, as I have just outlined, the Mail is clearly and unambigiously lying.
Also, I never accused Survation of push polling, but of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.
The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.
On a slightly related note, there was a time when OGH, or one of PB's officers, would have drawn attention to the statistical legerdemain we see going on here.
The difference between how people would vote (35-37% in favour) and how they want MPs to vote (41%) is a small one.
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24. (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)
Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'
Agree: 47 Disagree: 24
And among Con voters its 60: 20
You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....
The daily mail states it as "it would be humiliating". That's not nearly what the question asks, like the other questions, it's a gross misrepresentation of the data. On several of the questions, as I have just outlined, the Mail is clearly and unambigiously lying.
Also, I never accused Survation of push polling, but of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.
The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.
On a slightly related note, there was a time when OGH, or one of PB's officers, would have drawn attention to the statistical legerdemain we see going on here.
If there was any, then they would.
One thing I think most of us have observed about OGH over the years is whatever his personal bias (and he and I have clashed a fair bit on interpretive issues over the years) he will always call out a dodgy poll or people making dodgy claims about polls.
I think we are pretty much at the point after more than a decade where if Mike is not complaining about a poll then it is probably because there is nothing to complain about.
Comments
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
One thing I think most of us have observed about OGH over the years is whatever his personal bias (and he and I have clashed a fair bit on interpretive issues over the years) he will always call out a dodgy poll or people making dodgy claims about polls.
I think we are pretty much at the point after more than a decade where if Mike is not complaining about a poll then it is probably because there is nothing to complain about.