Brexit

A poll carried out by a neutral market research company, no less.

The article written by the polling company can be found here: www.survation.com/general-election-voting-intention-and-brexit-preferences-poll/
And the raw results are here: www.survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Survation-Political-Poll.xlsx

Notable excerpts from the report by the polling company include:


Comparing these numbers with their previous poll in May, the support for a no-deal exit has dropped by 6%.

And, worth pointing out again what jadnoop did upthread, that if there were to be a second referendum, it's 50% Remain, 45% Leave. If you exclude those people who say that they would be unlikely to vote, it's 52:43.

I feel obliged to repeat what I said earlier in the week:

A lot of respondents may have been smart enough to know the Queen had no option. That’s an undeniable fact, oddly enough shared in many media outlets so many here appear convinced are proponents of ‘fake news’. (Rolls eyes)

Are you sure it’s just the DM being dodgy about presenting the results? Because by saying what you do in 2, you’re conveniently ignoring the other results within the poll that show the Tories ahead of Labour, a majority of respondents thinking Johnson is doing a good job, Johnson streets ahead in the best PM question, a majority of respondents not wanting to delay Brexit (which the Johnson naysayers are arguing was his reason for extending a typical parliamentary break at this time of year) and only a 1% difference between supporting/opposing the prorogation. If the respondents were outraged by Johnson’s actions, these numbers should look VERY different. 

Again, if 3 is true, you might expect the anti Brexit parties to be further ahead in the voting intention polls. But numerous recent polls have shown that if you combine Brexit/Tory and Lab/Lib Dem voting intentions, you could successfully argue the pro-Brexit parties would be in the ascendant. (Of course the voting intention difference may well show that a lot of voters aren’t that bothered about Brexit/are bored now and want it over with so we can get back to running the country, in which case their voting intention will have other influences on it. Again, the ‘don’t delay, let’s get on with it’ result in this poll may lead our thinking in that direction.)

I can’t see the full Survation results in a Google search to tell if the DM have ignored a question included in the poll, but would happily read if you can provide a link.

I think it is a clever move by Johnson/Cummings. Calls out Clarke, Grieve, Hammond, Gauke and others and said are you going to bring down the government and install Jeremy Corbyn?

Dangerous couple that

Thanks n1david, that’s all I could find too but it’s a different poll I think? This is dated 14 August and the Mail reported late last night on what seems to be a different set of questions? (If it’s a different poll the DM can’t be accused of leaving out a question in their report since that question may never have been asked! And it wouldn’t be statistically correct, I would imagine, to report one set of results from 30 Aug and include the figures from a 14 Aug question you may not have asked on 30 Aug - especially when the situation has changed so dramatically in the time period between the two, which might therefore impact the result if it WAS asked on 30 Aug?)

But taking those results, yes, support for no deal may well have dropped at that stage. Add together the two leave results and compare to remain. Leave still has a majority. So it would appear our best option, overall, would be to leave with a deal. 

On that score, news the EU may be thinking about dropping the 31 Oct deadline is interesting. You could see it as an attempt to pressure Johnson, or as a sign the EU really don’t want a no deal either and are backing down in the face of Johnson’s threat. It’s all a massive game of brinksmanship but, given that, a deadline helps focus minds, I think!

And on your final point, I agree with you 100%. It’s the reason I read the Guardian, the Mail, the Telegraph and the Independent, alongside sources across the spectrum of political opinion that I follow on Twitter. I then apply my knowledge and experience to what I’ve read and decide what I believe. I spend quite a lot of time doing that, actually! Isn't that what anybody sensible does? Others with different experiences will make different decisions from me. That’s fine!

Yes, sorry n1david, I was writing a long post (while also trying to eat breakfast!) so got delayed and didn’t see your link til after I posted. 

Yes, it’s all so close, and as I said when I posted the Survation results originally, shows a country divided.

Whatever happens, there are a heck of a lot of issues to be addressed afterwards as leaving (if we ever do that) won’t resolve them all!

Ooh that is a good question? Let's leave this one as the Brexit talk for at least a month until any possible successful VONC and Boris releasing power.

Of course I have personal biases. We all do.

But I spent a few minutes writing a post on a messageboard to highlight some of the biases in the article you chose to link to instead of going to the original source. The DM spent (presumably) a decent amount of time to present the results of the survey they commissioned to millions of readers.

I imagined it was implicit but if not: no, my comment was not intended to be a neutral and complete summary of the survey. Indeed, I even ended my comment with an explicit suggestion that readers go to the original source (and as implied by your comment, the DM didn't bother with that). If you want to describe this as 'dodgy' then fair enough.


'If they were true', 'the numbers should look different'? What are you talking about? The numbers in the survey are what they are, and the internal inconsistencies simply represent of the complexities & inconsistencies of the people being surveyed.

If your argument is that the results might not represent the wider population, or might not tally other surveys carried out at different times, well of course, what do you expect? Scaling a survey of 1,020 people to the entire population is hugely difficult and problematic, especially when it comes to entirely qualitative & subjective issues like Brexit. And believe it or not, people's views & answers change over time, they depend on the phrasing on the questions, and by recent events, and so on. So it's hardly surprising that there will be inconsistencies.

But either you take the survey as it is (just a survey of only 1,020 people on a complicated topic), or you acknowledge that the small sample size, hugely divisive topic, and timing of the survey mean that it's just a fuzzy snapshot which can't readily be assumed to represent the wider population. Either way, you can't simply treat one portion of the answers as true and then say that other questions aren't true because they're different from the ones you've decided are correct.


The data is available from the Survation twitter account. It includes the aggregated results for each question, split by key demographics. The results are also presented both raw, as well as scaled to adjust for things like whether people say they would vote, and so on. I include a link below:

This is a good example of how raw figures are twisted. To leave out the Green, Nationalist and other parties, as the DM did, it gives a biased version. Looking at the complete figures those parties are on 8% and that changes the picture somewhat.

Polling is guessing at what has changed, in a more scientific way than just guessing but it means that they should be looked at with caution. Last General Election they were mostly all over the place, for example and, feasibly, were a part of what made May blunder into losing her majority. At the moment there is an interesting factoid that pollsters are tending to find fewer Brexit supporters than should be the case, so are having to boost their figures to account for that.

What does that mean? Are they embarrassed to admit it, have they false memory recall, have they changed their minds, have they died off? Different pollsters are coming up with different answers and solutions but nobody really knows until it is tested at the ballot box.

How did we get to a point where we have articles about evacuating the Royal Family in 2019 in the UK? Because of the possibility of civil unrest! More concerning is the fact that all it will mostly lead to from people is shrugs

(Rhetorical question in case anyone plans on giving me details!!)

Meanwhile I'm pricing up freezers for the shed to stockpile meat, bread and veg and wondering how I can get extras on my prescriptions. How many times can I honestly 'lose' my tablets?