Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
it's getting out of hand now!
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
30 jobs.......and they will be re-employed straight away...........the scaremongering has hit rock bottom now.....
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
It’s a non story......and yes, we will get to make our own rules.......
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Come on Bruce, 30 jobs, where’s the hundreds of thousands of job losses you lot were predicting........
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825617300635
We presented participants with a simple voting situation in which they had to choose between three simple options: vote red, vote blue, or abstain. For the purposes of our experiment, and unlike in an election or referendum, each time participants voted, there was a definite “correct” answer determined at random by a computer.
Their choices became a political bet. If they chose correctly, and others did too, they won a small cash prize. If enough of them chose incorrectly, they’d all lose out. There was an incentive for participants to come to the right decision.
We also presented the voters with two types of information. “Public information” was seen by everyone and referred to as “expert”. “Private information” was given to individuals and referred to “personal opinion”. Each type was also presented with a probability of it being correct, ranging from 50%, to as high as 95%.
For the experiment, we weren’t interested in which way participants voted – but rather how they used the information they were given in reaching a decision. Which would hold more sway? Expert, public information available for all to see, or the non-expert, privately held information?
We predicted that voters would opt for the choice where the probability of it being correct was highest – or that they’d abstain where it was not clear. If, for example, expert advice said to vote red with 95% certainty of that being “correct” and private information said to vote blue with only 55% certainty of being correct, then logically and rationally participants would vote red.
Or, if both options had a similar probability (let’s say expert advice points to red with 95% certainty, whereas private information points to blue with 85% certainty) then the best action would be to abstain, in the hope that others who had a clearer picture of the correct choice would determine the winner.
But people did not do as we expected.
Although some followed that logical approach, the majority did not vote efficiently. They followed their personal information when it made no sense to do so. Around 55% of participants voted on personal information, against expert information, when only around 10% should have done so.
We found this behaviour consistently every time we ran the experiment. Even when voters had private information that we deemed borderline useless – where the probability of it being correct was about 50% – they still followed this private advice, ignoring public, expert options.
Going with guts
As a result, all the participants earned far less money in the experiment that they could have done.
Our experiment was a standalone economic one. But it presents an interesting observation of what might have happened when it came to the EU referendum in 2016, or the election of President Donald Trump in the US.
For political reasons, in those instances the electorate went against what was expected, and against the weight of “expert evidence and advice”. Of course, for both outcomes the jury is still out on what was the better economic decision.
In our experiment, we set up a gamble where participants would only end up losing out by small amounts. When the stakes are much higher, ensuring that expert advice gets through to everyone might be a gamble none of us can afford to lose.
For political campaigns to be successful, a focus on objective facts will only get you so far – and often that’s not far enough to win over the electorate. Both the messenger, and the message, need to be right.
But whatever the rights and wrongs of Brexit and Trump, we found that private information carries more sway when it comes to informing individual choices. It does not matter how good experts are or what they say, voters will often favour what their guts tell them when it comes to choosing where to put their X in the ballot box
We presented participants with a simple voting situation in which they had to choose between three simple options: vote red, vote blue, or abstain. For the purposes of our experiment, and unlike in an election or referendum, each time participants voted, there was a definite “correct” answer determined at random by a computer.
Their choices became a political bet. If they chose correctly, and others did too, they won a small cash prize. If enough of them chose incorrectly, they’d all lose out. There was an incentive for participants to come to the right decision.
We also presented the voters with two types of information. “Public information” was seen by everyone and referred to as “expert”. “Private information” was given to individuals and referred to “personal opinion”. Each type was also presented with a probability of it being correct, ranging from 50%, to as high as 95%.
For the experiment, we weren’t interested in which way participants voted – but rather how they used the information they were given in reaching a decision. Which would hold more sway? Expert, public information available for all to see, or the non-expert, privately held information?
We predicted that voters would opt for the choice where the probability of it being correct was highest – or that they’d abstain where it was not clear. If, for example, expert advice said to vote red with 95% certainty of that being “correct” and private information said to vote blue with only 55% certainty of being correct, then logically and rationally participants would vote red.
Or, if both options had a similar probability (let’s say expert advice points to red with 95% certainty, whereas private information points to blue with 85% certainty) then the best action would be to abstain, in the hope that others who had a clearer picture of the correct choice would determine the winner.
But people did not do as we expected.
Although some followed that logical approach, the majority did not vote efficiently. They followed their personal information when it made no sense to do so. Around 55% of participants voted on personal information, against expert information, when only around 10% should have done so.
We found this behaviour consistently every time we ran the experiment. Even when voters had private information that we deemed borderline useless – where the probability of it being correct was about 50% – they still followed this private advice, ignoring public, expert options.
Going with guts
As a result, all the participants earned far less money in the experiment that they could have done.
Our experiment was a standalone economic one. But it presents an interesting observation of what might have happened when it came to the EU referendum in 2016, or the election of President Donald Trump in the US.
For political reasons, in those instances the electorate went against what was expected, and against the weight of “expert evidence and advice”. Of course, for both outcomes the jury is still out on what was the better economic decision.
In our experiment, we set up a gamble where participants would only end up losing out by small amounts. When the stakes are much higher, ensuring that expert advice gets through to everyone might be a gamble none of us can afford to lose.
For political campaigns to be successful, a focus on objective facts will only get you so far – and often that’s not far enough to win over the electorate. Both the messenger, and the message, need to be right.
But whatever the rights and wrongs of Brexit and Trump, we found that private information carries more sway when it comes to informing individual choices. It does not matter how good experts are or what they say, voters will often favour what their guts tell them when it comes to choosing where to put their X in the ballot box
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
True that. I voted Remain not down to any fact, just that I think its daft to leave and create a load of hassle. (And I dont like my racist, ignorant bigoted neighbour who is a UKIP member) Not that all Leavers are that, just that he deffo is.
That is a very valid point and illustrates why we need politicians to tell the truth and work for the good of the country, not their narrow personal interests.
Maltese_Falcon
Player Valuation: £15m
Inappropriate Language
Fck the EU !
Charlie Sweet
Player Valuation: £35m
And in a nutshell that single post contains a greater level of considered debate and analysis than the whole Vote Leave movement managed during the referendum campaign!
Charlie Sweet
Player Valuation: £35m
Gwladysstreetlad
Player Valuation: £50m
From my perspective as a leave voter I certainly didn't vote based on anything UKIP or Farrarge had to say. Imo UKIP is a laughable basket case of a party that wasn't taken seriously before Farrarge arrived and have gone back to being a joke now he's gone. There's a lot of very unlikable people in their party however the same could be said for the Tories and Labour and anyone in Westminster. I think UKIP gets far more media attention then they actually derserve and remainers seem to value what they say (albeit in a negative way) more then leavers. As far as supporters they have some really nasty undesirables along with some really good people who have been unjustly labelled guilty by association.
As for Farrarge, well I'm not his biggest fan and I see him as an attention seeker and almost entirety insincere, but again this is quite common with politicians. I don't see him as the English equivalent of Donald Trump and if people took a step back and seriously listened to him their fear of the guy would decrease as their respect for him also decreases. From my view he served an important purpose of making Cameron so afraid of him and UKIP that he gave us the referendum as a bargaining chip in the 2015 election so for that at least in grateful.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Just about sums it up really.......
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
Look, we just CAN'T have this happening! It's simply not part of the 'Remain' script! How DARE the UK improve!!! My flabber is gasted, what!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090
Britain should prepare for a much more economically optimistic 2018 because global growth is better than predicted.
That's the argument of Lord Jim O'Neill, the former Conservative Treasury minister and Remain supporter.
He said Britain's growth forecasts are likely to be upgraded as China, the US and Europe show increased activity.
The gloomy predictions of the possible effects of Brexit are likely to be "dwarfed" by the more positive figures, Lord O'Neill added.
But he argued that far from "changing his mind" on the economic effects of Brexit, the question now for the UK was how much better the country could be doing without the uncertainty over its relationship with the European Union.
"I certainly wouldn't have thought the UK economy would be as robust as it currently seems," Lord O'Neill, who is on the board of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, told me.
"That is because some parts of the country, led by the North West [of England], are actually doing way better than people seem to realise or appreciate.
"As well as this crucial fact, the rest of the world is also doing way better than many people would have thought a year ago, so it makes it easier for the UK."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090
Britain should prepare for a much more economically optimistic 2018 because global growth is better than predicted.
That's the argument of Lord Jim O'Neill, the former Conservative Treasury minister and Remain supporter.
He said Britain's growth forecasts are likely to be upgraded as China, the US and Europe show increased activity.
The gloomy predictions of the possible effects of Brexit are likely to be "dwarfed" by the more positive figures, Lord O'Neill added.
But he argued that far from "changing his mind" on the economic effects of Brexit, the question now for the UK was how much better the country could be doing without the uncertainty over its relationship with the European Union.
"I certainly wouldn't have thought the UK economy would be as robust as it currently seems," Lord O'Neill, who is on the board of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, told me.
"That is because some parts of the country, led by the North West [of England], are actually doing way better than people seem to realise or appreciate.
"As well as this crucial fact, the rest of the world is also doing way better than many people would have thought a year ago, so it makes it easier for the UK."
- Status