Brexit

When I first saw the figure of 2 million I thought that was a hell of a lot and so i simply asked:

"Estimated by who exactly? The organisers? The figures I have read (from organisers) puts the figure at up to ONE million...and it's not as if they don't have a track record of significantly overestimating their crowd numbers. But you say TWO million. Just curious where that figure comes from. I'm sure you'll concede there is a significant difference btw one and two million."

Not an unreasonable question I would have thought. Presumably you hold a different opinion. Anyway, at that stage I had only seen organisers quoting up to 1 million marchers so i was genuinely curious as to where the 2 million figure came from.

She then politely suggested that i do my own research and so i did. This is when i found internationally recognised experts in the field of crowd management and estimating crowd numbers stating that far from 2 million the crowd was SIGNIFICANTLY less.

For example:
- Keith Still, a Professor of Crowd Science at Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), who by the way has developed mandatory event-monitoring training for police, had analysed the available date and put the crowd between 312,000 and 400,000 people.
- Eric Kant, a crowd management specialist at Dutch company Phase01 used RAMP analysis to estimate the crowd. He estimated a crowd of between 312,000 and 624,000 people.

So, Jen quotes 2 million marchers. I ask where her information comes from (turns out it was from some un-named source being quoted on twitter). She tells me to do my own research which I then do. This research reveals that the figure of 2 million marchers is absurd. I post the results of my research. I use FACTS to EXPLAIN why i think her figure is a nonsense. So what exactly about all of this do you object to?

And this "fact" is based on what exactly? How do we even know that Calais' own work wasn't taken into consideration?



And if you go back and read what I posted in response, you'll notice that I never disputed ANY of that.

The facts of what Calais has done in preparation was NEVER IN DISPUTE.



And what I said is that Yellowhammer is a "reasonable worst case scenario", not a forecast. It's likelihood is an entirely separate issue from what it predicts.

The only issue I had was that you disputed the reputability of prediction models, but had no problem with statistical ones, when they both use the same framework to arrive at their answers. You were the one who drove the conversation from discussing statistics to Yellowhammer by bringing up an entirely pointless non sequitur about how Calais was never asked for input on Yellowhammer (allegedly).



When you request that Jenifer provide evidence for the claim of a 2 million attendance march, you think that a reasonable request. When I request evidence for your claim that predictions are not useful, your response is to ask if I'm joking and then proceed to go off and explain yourself as to why you don't believe predictions are not useful, which is not evidence. You seriously don't see any double standard here? You don't see that at all?



How about when I asked you to provide evidence that 'the statistics you believe in have good records while the ones you don't believe in have bad ones'?

Your response was to ask if I was 'trying to wind you up'. You then went into a long explanation about how there is a difference conceptually between predicting the future and looking at the present.

The problem being that even looking at the present requires some assumption. Going back to the topic of polls which brought up this entire discussion in the first place, polls are conducted with subsets that are ASSUMED to have certain characteristics. In future predictions, you look at current and past data and ASSUME certain parameters to make a prediction about the future. Both operate on the fundamental principle that the statistics are only as good as the data and assumptions used to support them. Predictions of the future are based on exactly the same type of data as statistics of the present. Data from the present and past.

THIS is why one of the first things I asked when Yellowhammer came up was 'what are the assumptions in the report?' Knowing that can usually tell you quite a lot about the predictions purpose and probability.



And we know this how?



And there's that word again. "Think". Calais making more space to hold traffic is a fact. That you think this, among other preparations, makes Yellowhammer worthless is an opinion. Therefore, the idea that Yellowhammer is worthless is an opinion and not a fact.

You mean like I've done more than 3 times already and you've dismissed them with no explanation whatsoever?

Once again, I'm not denying that people felt betrayed.



Oh, so as long as we believe something to be a reasonable description, we can use it with a clear conscious, huh? Tell me, how is this different from Jenifer's stance on the 'racist xenophobic' leavers again?



Literally the only thing out of all of this I could confirm was that Verhofstadt was invited (and did) speak at the LD's party conference. Where are you getting the rest of this information from?



Yes, and as I already explained to you, "no deal is better than a bad deal" does not mean 'negotiate for an arbitrary length of time and then accept no deal if nothing comes of it'. I don't understand how you can keep claiming that I haven't been reading what you're typing when I'm specifically using your words and the words you keep claiming I don't read when I respond to you.



Which is not a perpetual delay.



The rebel Tories said they would not support any deal BJ came up with even before they knew what it was? Really? Where did they say that? I know that they strongly opposed no-deal but that's all I could find.



Next time, when talking about a bill, would you like me to talk about every proviso and attach a doc, or can I just talk about the things that are relevant to the point being made?



Pure supposition.

Nothing. I said at the time (and have repeated it what feels like a million times now) that it was a perfectly valid criticism. What I have issue with is you behaving like she did when you called her out. I have asked you for numerous sources for information you reference constantly, and I think you've only ever given me 2 or 3. The rest you've basically ignored, like she ignored your requests for information. I've even said that I can't find information on these things and that i can't corroborate any of things you're saying about them, and yet you still insist on using them in your arguments.

Yes, I was clearly 'defending the report' when I said things like, "I have never stated that Yellowhammers report is accurate, or that I trusted it." Here.

How have I defended the way remoaners presented it?

As for defending it's authors, where have I done such a thing?

As I had been saying regarding Yellowhammer this whole time, I don't trust the Yellowhammer report. I only disagree with your objections of it.



I have refused to accept this fact, huh? Please recall that the fact in question is that the 2017 Conservative Manifesto shown here is that "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK." This is not a fact that I dispute in the slightest. You're the one trying to inject meaning into these words beyond what they say.



Your definition of the word "fact" is very odd.



You have? Then let's have you answer one simple question I asked a while ago here . What was the point of bringing up Barnier and his stance to make Brexit unappealing in the context of the idea that you held nothing against the EU for their negotiating stance?

Because the authors of yellowsnow stated that they never visited the PoC nor spoke to the authority. They told us they didnt and the PoCA confirmed it. Simple.


Yet you claimed I offered no "facts or figures" to back up my low opinion of yellowsnow. That i didnt explain why i held the report in such low regard. And now you are saying the facts i used to help explain my position have never been in dispute. So how does that work exactly?


And I said it's an unreasonable worst case scenario. Much of the report hinges upon assumptions made about the movement of unready HGVs at the PoC. If you dont even bother to visit the Port (it's hardly on the other side of the world) or even speak to those running the Port then what credibility do you have? How you can see this as reasonable is beyond me.


In economics statistics are generally key to predictive modelling. So it's extremely important to get the best, most reliable information possible. Junk information in equals junk information out. The yellowsnow authors made no effort to obtain relevant, up to date information before writing their report so the five pages of text they came up with is rubbish. As for the PoCA. They said that if the UK were to leave with no deal then you wouldnt be able to tell the difference re traffic flow from the UK's last day in the EU to their first day outside of it. To me that was a little strong and I would not accept such a definitive prediction. However, I do say, and have said, that the PoCA is a much more reliable source re expected traffic flow at the PoC than Whitehall Civil Servants.


Wow, so the failure of the yellowsnow authors to obtain up to date information before writing their report was an entirely pointless non sequitur? Are you for real?



YOU SHOW ME where I have EVER said that predictions are not useful. I have maintained that predictions need to be treated with caution. You need to understand who is making them, why they are being made, what data, facts and/or figures are they basing their predictions on? How reliable are these facts and figures etc. Specific to the yellowsnow report i stated that i did not think it was credible because it was commissioned by someone opposed to the UK leaving without a deal (actually he was/is opposed to the UK leaving the EU under any circumstances). It was written by people opposed to the UK leaving without a deal and it was based on data/figures that at best were well out of date at the time they were being used etc etc etc.


Ah yes, you believing that economic predictions about the future are to be essentially viewed through the same filter as the results of nationally respected opinion polls. That one can treat reports about what has happened and what might happen as being one and the same. Thanks for the link. Saved me having to look it up.

And yes I did provide you with PLENTY of examples of economic predictions re Brexit that were wildly out...time and time again. And I did provide information re the accuracy of polling organisations like YouGov.


Nope. Certainly polls do make some assumptions re those they select re them being representative of a larger demographic. But that's pretty much where it ends. After that the stats generated by polls are known facts. You know how many people you ask. You know what you asked them. You know what their response was etc etc etc. With economic predictive modelling you use figures from the present and past. That's true. You then make a whole series of 'educated' guesses re what may happen in the future and how a whole host of variables may impact upon certain areas. The whole process is highly speculative and the predictions made re Brexit have consistently been wildly out. This is largely because the assumptions being made were wildly inaccurate. So whilst there are some things that polls and economic predictive models have in common their is far more things that differentiate them. If you wish to treat known facts with speculation on the future as being the same thing then good for you.

@nooneinparticular Said

THIS is why one of the first things I asked when Yellowhammer came up was 'what are the assumptions in the report?' Knowing that can usually tell you quite a lot about the predictions purpose and probability.

Actually knowing who commissioned the report and why tells you a lot without even looking into other factors. The report was basically commissioned by someone who wanted to 'prove' that leaving with no deal would be catastrophic.

@nooneinparticular Said

And we know this how?

We know this because the authors have no experience in commercial logistics. Absolutely no experience or knowledge in how commercial ports operate. They were general civil servants.

By the way, you were calling these civil servants 'experts'. Would love to know what you based that on.

@nooneinparticular Said

And there's that word again. "Think". Calais making more space to hold traffic is a fact. That you think this, among other preparations, makes Yellowhammer worthless is an opinion. Therefore, the idea that Yellowhammer is worthless is an opinion and not a fact.