Pie chart to show how Brexit will weaken our trading power

Those in favour of hard Brexit, like Secretary of State for International Trade, Dr Liam Fox seem to think once we leave the EU we needn’t bother about trade with the EU so much, as we will have the freedom to trade with the rest of the world in a free and easy manner.

After taking a look at GDP data from the World Bank here, I don’t share the good doctor’s prognosis.

The US economy is currently the largest economy on the planet with 24.7 per cent of global GDP. The EU (including the UK) is second largest with 22.4 per cent of global GDP.

Currently, as a member of the EU, the UK is part of the second largest global trading block. That makes the EU (and by extension the UK) a very lucrative trading partner.

But when we leave the EU, the EU will still be the second largest trading block (albeit with a reduced share of global GDP down to 18.5 per cent). The UK will fifth largest trading block with 3.9 per cent of global GDP.

Post Brexit the EU are not going to give the UK an easy trade deal, and the US and China will still see the EU as their primary trading partners rather than the UK.

Now, imagine you are India, Brazil, Canada, or any of the other 160 countries that are smaller than the UK but still make up one-third of world’s GDP. Now ask yourself would you rather focus your time on getting good trade deals with the US, the EU and China, or would you want to get spend your time on thrashing out a trade deal with the UK?

I’m generally not a fan of pie charts for the reasons given here, but in this case I think a pie chart illustrates my point well – see below.

The UK economy is significantly smaller than the big three trading blocks and is broadly comparable to Canada, Brazil and India. We will not be one of big players.

gdp-pie-eu-minus-uk

Those Labour Purge Missing Ballot Papers – the real numbers

Yesterday I posted about the “Labour Purge” and the suspensions that had been carried out by the NEC. The (relatively) very low figures surprised me and they surprised a lot of other people. Two quite reasonable questions were asked by a few people.

First, my data source was questioned. So I will restate my figures came from Labour Party NEC member Christine Shawcroft. She is resolutely on the left of the party and has been so for many years. She was on the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance (CLGA) slate in the recent NEC elections. The CLGA were very clearly pro-Corbyn, and Christine continues to be a vocal supporter of Corbyn. Christine has no motivation whatsoever to publish fake figures to downplay the number of suspensions. It simply is not reasonable to seek to discredit these figures because of her political motivation.

The second question that was raised was “what about the people who had missing ballot papers?” That is a very good question and I will turn to that now.

In a Facebook post here Christine says “The figures show that 5,000 people asked for replacement ballots (ie they hadn’t got the first one for some reason).” According to a post on Richard Burgon’s Facebook page there were 654,006 ballot papers distributed. So the 5,000 ballot papers amounts to 0.8 per cent of all papers issued. And remember nearly all of these people will have had a new paper reissued.

So, 3,963 people (or 0.6 per cent of the selectorate) were suspended and  5,000 people (or 0.8 per cent of the selectorate) did not get a ballot paper initially. Has there been a deliberate and systematic purge by the NEC that denied masses of Corbyn supporters their vote? I’d suggest the evidence says no because:

  1. Of the 3,963 people (or 0.6 per cent of the selectorate) were suspended we know many of them will have been for valid reasons. You only have to look at the pro-Corbyn Labour Abuse and anti-Corbyn Gentler Politics twitter accounts to see the reports of abuse. Abusive behaviour is definitely happening. Also some people have been found to be members of other parties. So the number of “wrong” suspensions is going to be fewer than 3,963.
  2. Some of the people being suspended will invariably have been Smith supporters.
  3. Of the 5,000 people who reported that they had not got a ballot paper nearly all will have been reissued with a new ballot. Of course, some may not have received the replacement ballot paper, but the actual numbers who, in the end, did not get a ballot paper is much, much less than 5,000.
  4. Some of the people not getting their ballot papers will invariably have been Smith supporters
  5. Even if you make the highly implausible suggestion that all suspensions were “deliberate and wrong suspensions of Corbyn supporters” and all 5,000 missing ballot papers never got replaced and they were all “deliberate exclusions of Corbyn supporters” it amounts to 8,963 people or 1.4 per cent of the selectorate. It will have had negligible impact on the result.

Given the huge amount of outrage on social media about the NEC’s wilful and deliberate exclusion of Corbyn supporters through suspensions and missing ballot papers I was genuinely surprised by these figures, and maybe you are too. But if you are want to dispute them you either need to provide your own figures (and data source) or explain why an undoubted prominent Corbyn supporter would supply the wrong figures. If you answer either of these two questions then please do comment as if my conclusions are wrong I’m happy to be corrected.

Although I’m not really a fan of pie charts (see here for why) I think I pie chart illustrates my point well (I will admit they do have their  very occasionally – usually when there are only two or three categories).

labour-purge-by-suspensions-and-ballots-pie-chart

Those Labour Purge Suspensions – the real numbers

Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership election yesterday with 62 per cent of the vote. Congratulations to him on a convincing win. On social media there has been a lot of chatter about how that his margin of victory would have been much larger if the deliberate purge of his supporters had not happened.

I’ve seen some very high figures bandied about, some vent suggesting well over 170,000 people were prevented from voting. This seems like a very high figure so I thought I’d dig around to see what numbers I could find. I am not going to get into the rights and wrongs of decisions of the NEC to suspend or expel people – I solely want to make an objective assessment of the scale of those prevented from voting.

First, I want to start by quoting my sources for this analysis. Given that it is Corbynites who are claiming there has been a massive purge I will quote data I have sourced by two prominent Corbyn supporters. One is NEC member Christine Shawcroft who has a long track record of being on the left of the party and she is a prominent Corbyn supporter. Using Christine as a source has the added benefit because as an NEC member she has access to data other people may not get and she has kindly published it on Facebook. The other source is MP Richard Burgon who is in the Shadow Cabinet and other prominent Corbyn supporter.

Now let’s look at the suspensions. For reasons of brevity when I refer to “suspensions” I actually mean “suspensions and expulsions.”

Suspension from the party because of complaints about abusive behaviour, membership of a proscribed organisation, support for another party etc. A final reason for suspension is (and I paraphrase many Corbynites) “suspension for some ridiculous reason to deliberately purge Corbyn supporters.”

According to a post on Richard Burgon’s Facebook page there were 654,006 ballot papers distributed.  And according to a post on Christine Shawcroft’s Facebook page 11,250 complaints were put in. Over half of them were discounted. The 11,250 complaints represents 1.7 per cent of the selectorate for this election.

As Christine herself notes “If I was trying to conduct a purge of Party members or supporters, I wouldn’t dismiss half the complaints.” In fact two out of every three complaints were dismissed.

She goes on to say “of all the complaints, 3,963 led to suspension and expulsion.”

The total number of suspensions and expulsions amounts to 0.6 per cent of the selectorate for this election.

If some of the reports of individual accounts of suspensions are correct then it certainly looks like the wrong decision was made and they are likely to be successfully appealed. But there can be no doubt many of them will be reasonable. You only have to look at the pro-Corbyn Labour Abuse and anti-Corbyn Gentler Politics twitter accounts to see the reports of abuse. Abusive behaviour is definitely happening.

There is no way determining if the suspensions were disproportionately aimed at Corbyn supporters or how many will be successfully appealed but we can say for sure they only amount to 0.6 per cent of the selectorate and not all of this 0.6 per cent were Corbyn supporters, and not all of them will be successfully appealed.

Given this evidence, the idea that there has been a systematic purge of the selectorate using suspensions that disproportionately impacted on the result is plain wrong. So, if after reading this blog, you are still promoting this idea you are wilfully  spreading disinformation and being divisive.

Although I’m not really a fan of pie charts (see here for why) I think I pie chart illustrates my point well (I will admit they do have their  very occasionally – usually when there are only two categories).

labour-purge-by-suspensions-pie-chart

Match outcomes for Premier League referees for 2010/11 – 2015/16

Referees outcomes

The graph above shows the match outcomes (home win, draw and away win) as a percentage of the total number of Premier League matches officiated by that ref. The graph is for every ref in the seasons from 2010/10 to 201o/15/16. That is 2,660 matches. I got the data from here.

The dashed lines show the home win, draw and away win percentages across the 2,660 match sample so you can compare each ref with the average across the time period.

The number in brackets after each ref’s name is the number of games tat they have refereed.  I’d say that it’s only worth trying to draw firm conclusions from those refs who have refereed more than 50 matches as that gives enough data to smooth out any outliers.

Those refs near the top who have officiated at over 100 matches seem quite consistent in their results profile, apart from:

  • A Taylor who seems to give significantly fewer home wins, and signficantly more away wins.
  • L Mason who gives more away wins and fewer draws than average.
  • N Swarbrick who appears to give a lot fewer home wins than average.

To really understand how significant these deviations are I’d need to do a standard deviation calculation weighted by the number of matches officiated at. But I didn’t have time for that.

I was also surprised to see that more matches end up as an away win than as a draw. I thought it would be the other way around.

Why have I done this? Mainly because I can to hone my Excel skills. Also, if you are prone to the odd wager on the football this is information that might help you.

An Excel nerd point: the use of the horizontal dot plot required some significant wrangling as Excel does not have this type of chart as an option. Look here for the instructions on how to do it.

Does Clive Lewis’s Progressive Alliance add up electorally?

Yesterday Clive Lewis suggested that Labour should form a progressive alliance with the Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems, even going so far as to say “frankly, I want to be in government with Caroline Lucas, not against her.”

This certainly rattled some cages in many parts of the Labour Party. Setting aside the arguments around the desirability of this proposal, it set me wondering if such an alliance could actually win the next general election. So I took the model I produced last August, to see if non-voters could help Labour win the next election and modified it.

The modified model assumes some form of electoral pact in England where Labour do not stand candidates where the Greens and the Lib Dems have MPs. Likewise the Greens and Lib Dems do not stand candidates in any of the other seats Labour are fighting.

The model then allows you state what percentage of Green and Lib Dem voters will vote Labour if the party they voted for in 2015 does not stand a candidate. I’ve assumed 90 per cent of Green voters will vote Labour and 66 per cent of Lib Dem voters will vote Labour (it seems likely to me a smaller proportion of Lib Dems than Greens will switch to Labour). But you can change the figures in the interactive model below.

At the end of this post are more details about the model, but you can see that such a progressive alliance would be hard to form, even accounting for a Corbyn-led Labour Party enthusing some non-voters to vote Labour. Of course, there are other factors to consider in Clive’s proposals and the model is a simple one, but it does give an idea of the numbers.

And now, on to the model. See below. Enter your values in the red boxes and the graph will change. Note the graph gives the seat for each party and the bar at the bottom gives the total seats of the “progressive alliance” of Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru.

As ever if you think I’ve got anything wrong please let me know in the comments field.

If you want to use it on a phone or tablet you need to double tap one of the red cells to get it to bring up the keyboard.

  1. The turnout in the 2015 general election was 66.1 per cent.
  2. You can find the general election turnouts since 1945 here and you’ll see that turnout was only above 80 per cent twice: 83.9 per cent in 1950 and 82.6 in 1951. Originally my model has assumed a Corbyn-led Labour Party could get turnout up to 75 per cent, but a few people pointed out at nearly a 10 point increase this was unrealistic. So I’ve changed it to 72 per cent as this matches the turnout in the EU referendum. But you can change this parameter yourself on the model.
  3. It would be wrong to assume all the new voters because of increased turnout would vote Labour, some would be motivated to vote Tory to “stop Corbyn.” Originally I assumed 85 per cent of new voters would vote Labour. Again many people said this was unrealistic as the evidence is non voters tend to split on similar lines to the other party votes. Fair enough but it is clear Corbyn is engaging with the disaffected so it is plausible to assume the non voters who do turn out are more likely to be Labour voters, and I’ve set this at 66 per cent. You can change this parameter yourself on the model.
  4. My model only looks at seats in England and Wales as and assumes SNP will retain all their seats but will form part of a progressive alliance.
  5. Finally, this is based on the 2015 boundaries and the Tories intend to reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600 and they will seek to get boundaries redrawn in such a way that it benefits them. So whatever the results this model shows, it will be harder for Labour if the boundaries are redrawn.

Dodgy use of opinion polls

This graphic has been doing the rounds on Twitter. It is perhaps one of the most misleading use of opinion poll data I’ve ever seen. 

The graphic comes from this Ipsos MORI poll. Here is the link to the charts for the poll and I’ve reproduced the page with the graph on below. 

You can see there are actually two graphs. The one on the left is the one at the start of this blog post and is the one doing the rounds on Twitter. It shows Labour with a 5 point lead. The one on the right is shows a 1 point lead for the Conservatives. 

So what’s the difference? The one on the left gives the voting intention for all the people sampled. The one on the right gives “headline voting intention” which weights the result to take account of the likelihood of people to actually vote. 

This is massively important because if you don’t do this you get a distorted picture. Indeed in the 2015 general election the pollsters overestimated the Labour vote share. 

In their post election analysis the pollsters came to the conclusion that the reason they overestimated the Labour vote share was because they overweighted the likelihood of many Labour voters (particularly younger voters) to vote. 

So by choosing the graph on the left the person who tweeted this has presented a distorted picture that magnifies the errors in the polls done prior to the 2015 general election. No one credible ever quotes opinion poll results without weighting for turnout. 

They have either been guilty of blatant and deliberate cherry picking, or if I’m being generous, an unwitting confirmation bias. Either way it massively distorts the data. 

For the avoidance of doubt this post is not meant to be pro or anti any party, or party leader. It is meant to be pro-clarity and anti-distortion. 

And finally, I will add my six laws of opinion polls to help understand opinion polls more clearly. 

First law: If an opinion poll gives a result you don’t like and your defence is “they can’t be trusted” that’s fair enough.

Second law: If you have ever said “they can’t be trusted” but you have used an opinion poll to back up your preferred issue then you have broken the first law.

Third law: If the poll says what you would like it to say how sure are you that you are not guilty of confirmation bias?

Fourth law: Whilst voting intention polls are not great at precise predictions of vote share, they are broadly right. 

Fifth law: Remember every poll has a margin of error. Find out what it is.

Sixth law: It is dangerous to rely on one poll as the result could be an outlier within the margin of error (see fifth law) and/or you could be guilty of confirmation bias (see third law).