Being upbeat about Brexit.

[jakswan]

I didn't but no-one asked.

Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65, hence using that figure.

Source of data please?

Your initial post I responded seemed to be factually inaccurate (you have evaded expanding), one of your assumptions which you asserted were safe are no such thing, with the main point you are making is that the vote in four years the vote would have been different. So what? We voted in 2015 not sometime in the future.

[ProfessorDavey]

Source of data please?

Your initial post I responded seemed to be factually inaccurate (you have evaded expanding), one of your assumptions which you asserted were safe are no such thing, with the main point you are making is that the vote in four years the vote would have been different. So what? We voted in 2015 not sometime in the future.

Actually we voted in 2016.

But of course changes over time are hugely relevant - why, because we won't actually enact brexit until 2019 at the very earliest - I'd suggest more likely 2020 or later. So it is very important to be certain that their is a mandate for brexit when it actually happens 3 plus years into the future.

Are you really suggesting that we would be on democratically safe grounds if (for sake of argument) we leave the EU in 2021, but by that time there has been a shift in opinion (or merely a shift in demographics) so that there isn't a majority in favour of leaving anymore. Sounds deeply unsafe to me.

And of course the way to close off this problem of time lag and demographic/opinion shift is to have a referendum at the point when we are ready to leave, on the basis of the actual negotiated settlement. If there is a majority to leave, then we leave immediately and there is no democratic problem. If there is a majority to remain (because of demographic shift, change in opinion or simply because people liked brexit 'in theory' but have recognised we can't have our cake and eat it and therefore don't like the real brexit settlement), then we remain. Why is that such a problem to you. Seems entirely sensible and democratic to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Source of data please?

Which data?

[jakswan]

Actually we voted in 2016.

But of course changes over time are hugely relevant - why, because we won't actually enact brexit until 2019 at the very earliest - I'd suggest more likely 2020 or later. So it is very important to be certain that their is a mandate for brexit when it actually happens 3 plus years into the future.

Are you really suggesting that we would be on democratically safe grounds if (for sake of argument) we leave the EU in 2021, but by that time there has been a shift in opinion (or merely a shift in demographics) so that there isn't a majority in favour of leaving anymore. Sounds deeply unsafe to me.

And of course the way to close off this problem of time lag and demographic/opinion shift is to have a referendum at the point when we are ready to leave, on the basis of the actual negotiated settlement. If there is a majority to leave, then we leave immediately and there is no democratic problem. If there is a majority to remain (because of demographic shift, change in opinion or simply because people liked brexit 'in theory' but have recognised we can't have our cake and eat it and therefore don't like the real brexit settlement), then we remain. Why is that such a problem to you. Seems entirely sensible and democratic to me.

Yes an elected Parliament voted in favour of 6 to 1 to offer a referendum to the public and the public voted to leave. I'm open to the idea of another vote if its found that public opinion changes hugely or Parliament votes through another Referendum Bill.

I'm not in favour of offering based on your changes in demographics back of fag packet / factually incorrect / dodgy assumptions argument.

[jakswan]

Which data?

The post

"I didn't but no-one asked.

Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65, hence using that figure."

In bold.

[ProfessorDavey]

The post

"I didn't but no-one asked.

Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65, hence using that figure."

In bold.

ONS statistics - which demonstrate that well over 90% of deaths in the UK are people over 60 or 65 depending on which stats you look at.

And given that we are talking about deaths of previous voters one of the other largish demographics for deaths, infants, is not relevant. The death rates for people aged between 18 and 65 is tiny.

The most recent data indicates that 95% of deaths occurs at ages over 60, with 70% of deaths over the age of 80. Only about 1% of deaths are in the remain voting 18-44 category.

[jakswan]

ONS statistics - which demonstrate that well over 90% of deaths in the UK are people over 60 or 65 depending on which stats you look at.

And given that we are talking about deaths of previous voters one of the other largish demographics for deaths, infants, is not relevant. The death rates for people aged between 18 and 65 is tiny.

The most recent data indicates that 95% of deaths occurs at ages over 60, with 70% of deaths over the age of 80. Only about 1% of deaths are in the remain voting 18-44 category.

Got a link?

[ProfessorDavey]

Got a link?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2015-09-23

Head down to the figures and click on the xl tab for the data.

But I find it a bit bizarre your continual probing on this - what is so hard to believe - old people die, young people tend not to die, they grow old and then die. Given that average life expectancy is now 79.1 and 82.3 for men and women respectively, and the most common age for death is 86 for men and 89 for women, why is it so hard for you to accept my comment that:

'Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65'

[jakswan]

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2015-09-23

Head down to the figures and click on the xl tab for the data.

But I find it a bit bizarre your continual probing on this - what is so hard to believe - old people die, young people tend not to die, they grow old and then die. Given that average life expectancy is now 79.1 and 82.3 for men and women respectively, and the most common age for death is 86 for men and 89 for women, why is it so hard for you to accept my comment that:

'Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65'

I must be looking at different data:-

2012-2014   80+ 57.5%    60-79 33.5%   35-59 7.3%   15-34 1.1%    Under 15 0.6%

The most recent data indicates that 95% of deaths occurs at ages over 60, with 70% of deaths over the age of 80. Only about 1% of deaths are in the remain voting 18-44 category.

No 90% age over 60.

Ok...

[jakswan]

Not the way I worked it out.

We have about 750k new voters added to the electoral roll each year as the become 18. Of these 64% vote - in other words 480k - of those 73% or 350k vote remain, the remainder or 130k vote leave - so that is a net gain for remain of 220k per year.

Ok.

[/quote]
You can do the same at the other end for the 600k over 65's dying. Overall it gives a net gain per year for remain of between 350-400k, which wipes out the 1.3m majority in less than 4 years.
[/quote]

Actually its 90% so that is 540k of those 90% voted 486k of those 60% voted leave (291k) 40% voted remain (194k). A loss of 97k of leave.

So you would actually only gain 100k votes per year and that is assuming that voters don't become more conservative with age, and you seem to evade when challenged on that.

[ProfessorDavey]

I must be looking at different data:-

2012-2014   80+ 57.5%    60-79 33.5%   35-59 7.3%   15-34 1.1%    Under 15 0.6%

No 90% age over 60.

Ok...

That's just for men - remember have the population are female.

But whether it is 90% of deaths are for people over 60, or 95% or 97% is pretty irrelevant - all these figures are consistent with 'Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65', noting that there will be a rather small proportion of the 60-79 age deaths occurring between 60 and 65.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok.


You can do the same at the other end for the 600k over 65's dying. Overall it gives a net gain per year for remain of between 350-400k, which wipes out the 1.3m majority in less than 4 years.


Actually its 90% so that is 540k of those 90% voted 486k of those 60% voted leave (291k) 40% voted remain (194k). A loss of 97k of leave.

So you would actually only gain 100k votes per year and that is assuming that voters don't become more conservative with age, and you seem to evade when challenged on that.

Women exist and vote, my friend.

[jakswan]

That's just for men - remember have the population are female.

But whether it is 90% of deaths are for people over 60, or 95% or 97% is pretty irrelevant - all these figures are consistent with 'Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65', noting that there will be a rather small proportion of the 60-79 age deaths occurring between 60 and 65.

But not consistent with your earlier position that vote leave will be overturned in four years it seems.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok.


You can do the same at the other end for the 600k over 65's dying. Overall it gives a net gain per year for remain of between 350-400k, which wipes out the 1.3m majority in less than 4 years.


Actually its 90% so that is 540k of those 90% voted 486k of those 60% voted leave (291k) 40% voted remain (194k). A loss of 97k of leave.

So you would actually only gain 100k votes per year and that is assuming that voters don't become more conservative with age, and you seem to evade when challenged on that.

You estimates of net loss of brexit votes due to death is conservative, due to:

1. You've used % age of death only for men, who tend to die younger - when you add in women your proportion dying at age 60+ is more like 95%.

2. And actually you can go lower, given that the 55-64 category (and even the 45-54) are also disproportionately leave voting (57% and 56% respectively) - that further adds to the net loss of leave voters due to death. There are tiny numbers of deaths in the remain majority age categories of 18-44.

And you also have to add in the net gain to remain at the other end - currently there are 780k 17 year olds who will turn 18 and be eligible to vote - using the same approach - 64% of those would vote (just as the brexit turnout figures indicate) - in other words 500k and of those 73% would vote remain, meaning net gain to remain of 220-230k per year.

I haven't ignored your notion of people getting more conservative with age, and I read your link with interest - but I hardly see this as relevant to the current discussions on brexit and demographic shifts not over coming decades but over the coming few years - perhaps to 2021. There are a number of points to make:

First this is about identifying with the conservative party, not about brexit - you cannot extrapolate one to the other.

Secondly, as the author points out a perceived shift with age, may in fact be merely that it’s not a person’s age that is important, but rather which generation they belong to. So you have to actually track the cohort. And the article (or rather it's data) allows you to do this.

So from the graph - in 1979 41% of 30 year olds identified as conservative. In 2010 those same people are now 70 - and now 39% identify as conservative. So there has been a reduction in their 'conservatism', defined in the manner of the study, in that 40 year period. Likewise elsewhere - in 1987 44% of 40 year olds identified as conservative, fast forward with the same cohort, and in 1997 just 31% of 50 year olds identified as conservative - those are the same people remember.

So there is very limited evidence for this effect (as the author concludes) over a period of decades - much less so over a period of just a few years.

[ProfessorDavey]

But not consistent with your earlier position that vote leave will be overturned in four years it seems.

Absolutely it is.

Net gain to remain of 220-230k per year due to people turning 18.

Net loss to leave of 100-120k per year due to disproportion numbers of leave voters being lost due to death.

Add the 2 together net shift of approx. 320-350k votes per year in favour of remain. 2016 leave majority is 1.3M, that is wiped out in 4 years.

What is so hard to understand

[jakswan]

Absolutely it is.

Net gain to remain of 220-230k per year due to people turning 18.

Net loss to leave of 100-120k per year due to disproportion numbers of leave voters being lost due to death.

Add the 2 together net shift of approx. 320-350k votes per year in favour of remain. 2016 leave majority is 1.3M, that is wiped out in 4 years.

What is so hard to understand

I think you are ignoring shift in voting intention with age and not getting these figures exactly right but lets leave that aside. So what?

[jeremyp]

Source of data please?

There were  529,655 in England and Wales according to the ONS. Add about another 10% for Scotland and you are close to 600k.

[jeremyp]

So you would actually only gain 100k votes per year and that is assuming that voters don't become more conservative with age, and you seem to evade when challenged on that.

Plenty of conservatives are Remainers and plenty of socialists are Leavers. What evidence do you have that the tendency to become more conservative also implies a tendency to become more likely to vote Leave?

Anyway, this is somewhat moot because you are correct that nobody is going to order a new referendum based only on demographics. A new referendum will only occur if there is a demonstrable swing to the Remainers. Demographics tells us that this is likely to happen, everything else being equal.

Everything else, of course will probably not be equal because the economy might tank, companies might leave for the EU, or the economy might thrive - or do better than expectations, at least. Another factor is, if the EU plays hardball, the Dunkirk spirit might set in.

[ProfessorDavey]

There were  529,655 in England and Wales according to the ONS. Add about another 10% for Scotland and you are close to 600k.

When you add in Scotland and Northern Ireland, using their actual figures the overall number of deaths was 601k.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are ignoring shift in voting intention with age

But you have failed to provide any evidence that this exists. Certainly your linked article provides no support for the view that their is a systematic shift toward the conservatives (the measure used) with age. Indeed a number of the cohorts followed in that study showed small, or not so small shifts, away from the conservatives.

And as Jeremy P points out even if there were a shift towards the tories with age this couldn't be interpreted as indicating a shift toward brexit with age. I think you are falling into the trap that many do with religion - thinking that people get more religious as they get older, when they don't change at all, but there is a difference in base religiosity with generations. I think there is perhaps the same effect with brexit, and indeed the evidence we do have from 1975 and 2016 suggest this to be true.

[jakswan]

But you have failed to provide any evidence that this exists. Certainly your linked article provides no support for the view that their is a systematic shift toward the conservatives (the measure used) with age. Indeed a number of the cohorts followed in that study showed small, or not so small shifts, away from the conservatives.

And as Jeremy P points out even if there were a shift towards the tories with age this couldn't be interpreted as indicating a shift toward brexit with age. I think you are falling into the trap that many do with religion - thinking that people get more religious as they get older, when they don't change at all, but there is a difference in base religiosity with generations. I think there is perhaps the same effect with brexit, and indeed the evidence we do have from 1975 and 2016 suggest this to be true.

Getting bored suspect you are wrong but don't care enough to debate so will concede all your points.... So what?

[ProfessorDavey]

Getting bored

Which translates to:

'I've lost the argument'

... suspect you are wrong

Which translates to:

'I have no evidence to back up my hand waving assertons'

but don't care enough to debate so will concede all your points

Which translates to:

'Darn it, you are so clearly right, but can't really be seen to properly admit it, hence the 'whatever'-type response'

.... So what?

Ah finally something worth properly commenting on.

'So what' - do you really think it is of no importance that even if no-one actually changes their view the electoral mandate for the most important change we have made in decades will have vanished due to demographic shift by the time we actually realise brexit. I think that is pretty darned important, as it makes the mandate deeply unsafe.

[ProfessorDavey]

Been doing a bit of delving with regard to the discussions on demographic shift and suggestion that people get more conservative (in this case more-brexity) as they get older.

Interestingly 60+ is the only group where genuine voting comparisons as they get older can be made as they are the only ones who have actually had the opportunity to vote twice on membership of EEC/EU.

It is without doubt that in 2016 the most elderly voters were the most likely to vote for brexit. I think there is a kind of default assumption that this is always the case, and therefore that the 60+ voters in 2016 fighting their way to the polling station to make sure they voted leave were once bright eyed idealistic young adults in thrall to the common market, EEC etc and presumably strongly supportive of the EEC last time there was a vote in 1975.

But it isn't true.

I have dug out data from the British Election Panel studies, which actually looked at voting in the 1975 EEC referendum and in that referendum the voting profile with age was exactly the reverse of the 2016 one - namely that the oldest groups were much more likely to vote to remain in the EEC and the youngest groups of voters were disproportionately in favour of leaving.

So rather than moving from pro-remain as youngsters to pro-leave as oldies, the youngest age group in 1975 were the most grumpy about the EEC, wanting to get out - track forward 41 years and what do find (these people are now at least 59) and guess what - they are grumpy about the EU and want to leave. But the point is that they haven't 'become' grumpy over those 41 years, they were grumpy back in 1975.

So we often here someone old enough to have voted in 1975 come out with the rather glib 'but this isn't what we voted for' cliche, implying that they voted in favour of EEC membership in 75 but have become disillusioned. But the analysis suggests that they were likely not to have supported EEC membership back in 75 at all, as they were part of the most hostile group to membership them amongst the electorate. So they haven't become disillusioned, they always were.

And this might explain something about that currently elderly cohort - in general they were the most anti Europe in 75 - they lost then - have they been bearing a grudge all those years desperate for an opportunity to 'right a wrong' they perceived happened all those years ago when they voted to leave, but lost, in 75.

[Nearly Sane]

That's a fascinating piece of digging, Prof D, but the idea that people were bearing a grudge for 41 years seems fanciful.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's a fascinating piece of digging, Prof D, but the idea that people were bearing a grudge for 41 years seems fanciful.

You are perhaps correct, although my father seemed to (and blamed Ted Heath) - he didn't live to vote in the 2016 referendum but would certainly have voted out, as I suspect he did in 1975.

I think the most interesting aspect of this is that it was the youngest voters in 1975 most against membership - this is counter to a perception that (as in 2016) young people loved the EEC and old ones hated it. The reverse was true.

We can speculate as to why, but here is a thought.

The younger voters in 1975 would have been those born in the mid 1930s, 40s and 50s (the youngest born in 1957). Their formative years would have been pre-EEC and perhaps their perception of Europe was rather stylised - the kind of Eagle comic view. Critically while some might have lived through the war they wouldn't have experienced its horrors as an adult - certainly not served. So while their parents (who would have genuinely experienced the horrors of war as adults) were strongly supportive of the EEC, perhaps from the perspective of keeping peace in Europe, that wasn't so much of an issue to them.

Fast forward 40 years and that group retains its grumpiness towards europe, but are now the oldest voters - their children and grandchildren whose formative years were with the UK firmly part of the EU are comfortable with membership, while that older group remains skeptical.

Further point is that this doesn't provide any ammunition for Jakswan's view of people becoming more brevity as they get older - rather it suggests a generation (those born in late 30s to perhaps mid 60s) who don't like europe (and have remained so throughout their voting lives) sandwiched between older generations (born from 1900-mid 30s) who voted in favour of EEC membership is very large numbers, and younger generations (born 1970 onward) who are also more balanced or very favourable toward europe.