ChatterBank1 min ago
Local Voting Figures Shed New Light On Eu Referendum
Answers
Statistical correlations need to be taken in context anyway but certainly it seems that there is a clear pattern. What's important is to understand why that pattern exists -- and it certainly isn't as simple or as insulting as "you had to be thick to want to Leave the EU". The reverse insults bothers me just as much, ie that the more educated are instead as "out of...
15:04 Mon 06th Feb 2017
Talbot, nobody is asking how people voted !!
The statistics are based only on the actual number of votes case for Remain or Leave in each ward against the % with or without degree level qualifications in those same wards. The education level information will have come from the last census which included questions on education level .
The statistics are based only on the actual number of votes case for Remain or Leave in each ward against the % with or without degree level qualifications in those same wards. The education level information will have come from the last census which included questions on education level .
The evidence does NOT suggest that Leave voters are more stupid.
It says that, taken on average, they are less likely to have educational qualifications.
And no, your friend (or you) having a degree and voting Leave does not change or undermine this fact, because it is an average.
Nobody (except disgruntled leavers, apparently) is suggesting that lack of qualification = stupid. Because it doesn't.
It says that, taken on average, they are less likely to have educational qualifications.
And no, your friend (or you) having a degree and voting Leave does not change or undermine this fact, because it is an average.
Nobody (except disgruntled leavers, apparently) is suggesting that lack of qualification = stupid. Because it doesn't.
Most people who are now old didn't go to university because the entrance requirements were very strict and exams were hard. Nowadays the GCSE is a much easier exam than the GCE and entrance requirements are such that any kid with half a brain can go to uni and get a degree in cushion design even if they cannot spell or add up. I live in an affluent area with a high proportion of elderly people so we would appear statistically as old and thick.
Statistical correlations need to be taken in context anyway but certainly it seems that there is a clear pattern. What's important is to understand why that pattern exists -- and it certainly isn't as simple or as insulting as "you had to be thick to want to Leave the EU". The reverse insults bothers me just as much, ie that the more educated are instead as "out of touch" with the "real world", or some such.
Nevertheless, the correlation appears to exist. What it probably shows more than anything is that divides in age and education level lead to radically different perceptions of the world, with very little signs of common ground. That is rather sad -- not to mention troubling. But it's as divisive to imply that education or young age amounts to being brainwashed or narrow-minded, as it is to imply that being older and less well-qualified amounts to being racist and thick.
Nevertheless, the correlation appears to exist. What it probably shows more than anything is that divides in age and education level lead to radically different perceptions of the world, with very little signs of common ground. That is rather sad -- not to mention troubling. But it's as divisive to imply that education or young age amounts to being brainwashed or narrow-minded, as it is to imply that being older and less well-qualified amounts to being racist and thick.
“It also makes it clear that lots of educated, middle-class people must have voted to leave, …”
So I’ll ask again then (seemingly until I am blue in the face) “How do they know?”
“So an area with a aged population compared with say an area with a lot of young students, is going to give a different result.”
A good idea. Except: (1) There are very few areas in the UK (apart from perhaps University towns) where the age profile is significantly skewed to a degree enough to give it an “aged” population. (2) Even if such a conclusion should be drawn (and I would suggest it cannot) nobody knows, of the percentage of the electorate that did vote, how many were old, how many were young, how many were well-educated and how many not. In an “aged” town the majority of those voting may have been young and vice-versa.
“The statistics are based only on the actual number of votes case for Remain or Leave in each ward against the % with or without degree level qualifications in those same wards. The education level information will have come from the last census which included questions on education level .”
Another good idea. Except: as above, if 25% of an area’s population has a degree and 70% of that area voted to Remain, what’s the connection between those that have a degree and those who voted to Remain. Answer: none whatsoever. You cannot assume that those with a degree were more likely to vote to remain.
These are guestimates at best and the tongue-in-cheek conclusions I drew are as (in)valid as anything else. But more than that, it doesn’t matter a jot.
So I’ll ask again then (seemingly until I am blue in the face) “How do they know?”
“So an area with a aged population compared with say an area with a lot of young students, is going to give a different result.”
A good idea. Except: (1) There are very few areas in the UK (apart from perhaps University towns) where the age profile is significantly skewed to a degree enough to give it an “aged” population. (2) Even if such a conclusion should be drawn (and I would suggest it cannot) nobody knows, of the percentage of the electorate that did vote, how many were old, how many were young, how many were well-educated and how many not. In an “aged” town the majority of those voting may have been young and vice-versa.
“The statistics are based only on the actual number of votes case for Remain or Leave in each ward against the % with or without degree level qualifications in those same wards. The education level information will have come from the last census which included questions on education level .”
Another good idea. Except: as above, if 25% of an area’s population has a degree and 70% of that area voted to Remain, what’s the connection between those that have a degree and those who voted to Remain. Answer: none whatsoever. You cannot assume that those with a degree were more likely to vote to remain.
These are guestimates at best and the tongue-in-cheek conclusions I drew are as (in)valid as anything else. But more than that, it doesn’t matter a jot.
"The combination of education, age and ethnicity accounts for the large majority of the variation in votes between different places".
It was a secret ballot, wasn't it? So any conclusions are inferential, based on the demographic profile of the wrds for which voting figures are known.
Anybody worked in market research, by the way?
It was a secret ballot, wasn't it? So any conclusions are inferential, based on the demographic profile of the wrds for which voting figures are known.
Anybody worked in market research, by the way?
Of course I'm aware of that, NJ.
As to the data itself -- well, you are welcome to dismiss the conclusions, but it may be very self-defeating to do so. It's hardly that surprising anyway that, for example, the younger generation tended to vote in favour of remaining, if nothing else because of the "better the devil you know" principle, and anyone born after say 1970 will have known nothing but the EU. This is a point made by many on here -- oddly, the same people who are also dismissing these results that would then confirm their expectations!
Even the apparent correlation between voting patterns and education level in a ward shouldn't come as a surprise. Ask pretty much any university (and most of its staff) what they would have preferred and the answer was universally to remain in the EU. Whatever the reasoning behind this decision, that was the preference. And, lo and behold, Cambridge's city centre comes out with the highest pro-Remain vote, and it seems that in general (although not always) a high student population was associated with a higher remain vote.
Ignoring those patterns is self-defeating -- not because it insults the leave-voting majority as uneducated, but because it betrays deep divides that should be addressed, rather than ignored. Whatever the reasons behind these correlations, they deserve to be understood.
As to the data itself -- well, you are welcome to dismiss the conclusions, but it may be very self-defeating to do so. It's hardly that surprising anyway that, for example, the younger generation tended to vote in favour of remaining, if nothing else because of the "better the devil you know" principle, and anyone born after say 1970 will have known nothing but the EU. This is a point made by many on here -- oddly, the same people who are also dismissing these results that would then confirm their expectations!
Even the apparent correlation between voting patterns and education level in a ward shouldn't come as a surprise. Ask pretty much any university (and most of its staff) what they would have preferred and the answer was universally to remain in the EU. Whatever the reasoning behind this decision, that was the preference. And, lo and behold, Cambridge's city centre comes out with the highest pro-Remain vote, and it seems that in general (although not always) a high student population was associated with a higher remain vote.
Ignoring those patterns is self-defeating -- not because it insults the leave-voting majority as uneducated, but because it betrays deep divides that should be addressed, rather than ignored. Whatever the reasons behind these correlations, they deserve to be understood.
Assuming it's true it suggests the less experienced youth, and the well off who didn't have the concerns felt by the masses, wanted to avoid change and disruption to what they were familiar with, and perhaps had benefitted from in the past; they saw no benefit to them so that as a price not worth paying.
Whilst the rest of the community needed change, or were more concerned that their nation was being controlled not from within but by an outside power block that wasn't going to put Britain first, and saw any temporary disruption as a small price to pay to put things right.
Aye, that sounds plausible to me.
Whilst the rest of the community needed change, or were more concerned that their nation was being controlled not from within but by an outside power block that wasn't going to put Britain first, and saw any temporary disruption as a small price to pay to put things right.
Aye, that sounds plausible to me.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.