Brexit as a moral decision

I love the U.K. and I see the E.U. as very important . I hoped that voting leave would cause the E.U. to take a look at why. I believed that if we had to leave to get it to fix itself then it was worth the sacrifice. It looked like it may, but now […]

I love the U.K. and I see the E.U. as very important .

I hoped that voting leave would cause the E.U. to take a look at why.

I believed that if we had to leave to get it to fix itself then it was worth the sacrifice.

It looked like it may, but now it has turned to fear which is causing the opposite.

It makes me angry when remain voters assume that I did this because of immigration, that their reasons were somehow better or more justified than mine, because they really weren’t.  I believe we can survive and thrive out of the E.U., but not as we are going, as ministers don’t quite get it.

I believe that us leaving is a price worth paying to cause the E.U. to fix itself, but im afraid it hasn’t helped.

I wish the vote was seen as not one person voting leave and one stay, but as the countries unhappiness with aspects of the E.U., its reservations about the direction  of the E.U. and yet  hope for it. the countries almost unified percentages showing agreement across the whole of the U.K..

The media (i watch the BBC)  is immoral and hugely damaging  at best, and should think first a lot more.

Even Theresa May is talking of differences.

my writing is falling apart…note to self, fix….never time to as more stuff comes…arrggghh

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

Why UK Government gets old fast

grumbles on UK government in 21st century

  • Honesty would be lovely.  The PM could tell me she accidentally nuked most of Europe if she admitted she was drugged up with medication for her anxiety attacks and well, she thought it was another illusion.  Yup, the honesty would be lovely, awww bless her, i support her.
  • We see how government works now, and we dont like what we see.   We read about democracy & see something different.  We elect MPs as our proxies, but thats not how they view themselves.  They are the voice of reason to save us from our selves, but it goes further.  They know best and dont question whether they have it right.
  • They continue to tell themselves that selling off all our gold is too complex for us to really understand and there are reasons we dont see, really, now shussh.
  • For the most part we are useful to stick up for when it is convenient, but mostly an unwelcome annoyance.
  • We are easily appeased.  Here, ive added 50p to your grans pension.
  • We dont see the flaws with democracy.  Cameron said he wanted to look after his constituents after being PM, but as soon as it was clear he wasnt in the cabinet, he resigned.  stange huh??  At least it wasnt all about the power huh?  If PM pay isnt great, then the only reason to put yourself forward is power or to just help more people better.  Unfortunately, people that really help, dont want to get clogged down in office or more work getting in the way, usually, so generally dont volunteer.  Its the ones who dont ask who should get.
  • Cameron lost Brexit, was off, we all let him down, he deserved a few dodgy honours as reward, screw what they think, or how dare they question my motives.
  • Arlene Foster is just so damn important, more so than her country, or peace in it, how dare anyone question her that isnt on her high level.  Its her god given right, now shhh.

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

Expectation in Brexit and US Election was the real killer!

  1. Whatever they do, they can’t change the result, but maybe they want to send a message that they shouldn’t take it for granted and not to get to complacent, knowing it was safe to do so.
  2. Is it necessary to vote at all if voting for the inevitable anyway, as it is
  3. inevitable?

So those supporting the expected winner either vote for the opposite, or not at all!!

Have a look at the LATimes Polls.  These show that expectation is a dangerous thing:- (From http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/)

Who do you think will win?

capture

Who would you vote for?

We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses.

capture2

LA Times usc-presidential-poll-dashboard

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

 

Bad Analysts Beat Good

Would you hire an analyst who predicted Brexit and Trump?chart_249x167

Or one that got it wrong, but understandably so from the polls?

How about one who didn’t make any predictions until the day before each, and then put their neck on the line and got it right?

An analyst goes with the probabilities and polls and social effects.

But the day before each, I’d like to explain why an analyst should have got it right both times.

With Brexit, the polls flipped on a daily basis before the vote.  People backed off when they felt the responsibility of their voting, and that leave may happen, playing it safe.  The day before, the polls ended on Stay.  It seemed likely that people would continue their pattern and vote leave, after realising it was unlikely again, and they did.

With Trump, there was more to it(as there was with Brexit actually), but the polls reached a point just short of 50:50, but nearer than ever, and following Brexit thinking, as there was no more campaigning to influence things, Trump could only improve upon that as people saw it as unlikely and their priorities changed in their minds from polling thinking to a state that had been improving his   ratings as the time got closer and other considerations became involved.  From a long time before, or a foreign perspective, the least controversial is always best, but you aren’t thinking about what is best for your country and that can only improve the alternatives chances, and this will rise over time and shoot up a little more come actual voting.  He could only have done better, and as he was predicted to lose by the polls, there was no pull back by anyone thinking that if they got it wrong they would be responsible, and so change is always more likely than before.

Both involved many types of voters with falling into many groups and much more complicated than this explanation.

I made a prediction for both the day before and got both correct.  I wouldn’t have before, because it wasnt possible to make the right choice before that without making the least probable choice and so being bad at your job.

Now analysts havent self corrected properly, and explain what happened incorrectly from a simplistic perspective, biased from the view that madness won out and so defied logic, as it keeps them feeling good analysts.  So they simplify the voters and make them self-destructive badly educated voters, rather than look into the various voters that interacted and their opinions and perceptions.  There are an amazing amount of interesting factors that were involved that provide a lot of insight into future election success and failure and do’s and don’t, once you understand this subject properly.

James Cook UKThinkTank.com

Leaving the EU to save it – Brexit

You wouldn’t believe that Europe was more important to some leave voters than any stay voters?

If you are worried about populism, you have seen self destructive illogical behaviour recently.  Analysts got it all wrong and explained it as the less educated choosing racist or nationalist views over self benefit.  You can see this too.
So you wouldn’t believe that some of these people put you above themselves?  You wouldn’t believe that Europe was more important to some leave voters than any stay voters?  What if your views had prevented these peoples sacrifice from being understood?  What if you were the biased one??

Nobody believed it would happen.  Not even those that voted for it.

Maybe someone would vote for something they didnt want??  Maybe to send a message?  Given the result being unchangeable, maybe rather than voting for, voting against could send a message that you had reservations.

What if the unexpected then happened? You voted for what you didnt want but didnt expect it?  Explain that without feeling silly.

What if then you hoped that the cost was worth it if it made a difference, but what if the message never arrived and  the sacrifice was for nothing?

A danger is to not see that maybe people cause what they dont want, to lose any message, to treat simply and allow others to hold it out as an example for their right wing parties.

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understand Brexit

Analysts in the media in the U.K. voted to stay mainly, so fail to understand theres anything intelligent about leavers, so they must be against immigration and maybe a bit racist too, and just destructive.

From this most peoples actual desires are not well understood in Europe.

Its hard to see that some grown up thought was involved in most peoples votes.   It was a message that the EU was out of control, a cry for attention, to have a look at the EU and why it was a worry.

All these voters motives were for nothing, because of our own analysts represinting it badly to the E.U.

This was the first referendum for 20 years, the next could have been in another 20.  If leaving is so hard now, in 20 more years it would be practically impossible.  Then talk started of trying to stop this ever again, before we voted.  So leave now or stay forever was the choice.  If referendums were more likely, and leaving was not made to sound unlikely, noone would have been forced to leave.

Leaving made easy is important to keep the EU together, to make the EU seem like it isnt so bad it needs barriers to leaving, and not to restrict the options of its population.

 

to be continued……

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

When People Vote against their Wishes

People vote differently whenit is real from when it is not

People vote differently when the choices are more closely balanced from when more distant

People may not vote for their choice if they believe it will win

& may vote against it if they believe this.

Assumed losers are not voted for if they appear they may lose clearly

The greater the perceived differences between the choices, the more likely voting, and the more similar they seem as each other, the less likely, depending on the perceived likelihood of each winning of course.

Phrasing the question differently may change the result.  In an ideal world, people should be able to see all ways a question can be phrased, and it ultimately relies on understanding the problem better, or more deeply, or from different biases, and assumptions of the future etc.

People will vote differently if they feel their vote may change the result, ie closer to 50:50 before their vote.  More considered, but maybe more conservative and less risk averse  unless risk is not risking.  Decisions that make risks too great maybe should be broken apart.

Systems with feedback that prevents 3rd options developing can be biased badly when 3rd option is different andbecomes 2nd close option.  Then voting may occur for 2nd choice believing it wont win, where voting for option 2 is used as a tool to send a message to option 1.

Often voters can believe they are right and if they lose, it is not because of intelligent, opposition with legitimate moral concerns, but by the lowest common denominator, uneducated, and wrong for bad reasons.   – This can be dangerous as it may be seen as others as a view by a population that doesnt exist, that supports them perhaps.

When trailing slightly, this is the best state to be unless winning by a very long way.

When polls oscillate, assume the result will continue the pattern.

 

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com