Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
Because most people are getting zero per cent and aren't going on strike.
Is that the case?
Don't the stats show that private sector workers are getting fairly chunky pay rises (roughly inflation matching?) whilst public sector workers are on 0-2%?
Nobody likes paying more to get a job done, but staff cost what they cost.
Private sector pay is indeed rising as a whole, but behind the stats it appears that people are getting new jobs rather than pay rises - at least outside what were minimum wage jobs before the pandemic.
Do staff on the railways (as with many public sector organisations) still get seniority pay? So even if there’s no formal pay rise, they still move up a grade every year?
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
We are not talking about those who think it was right we were talking about your statement that more than 50% of voters think Brexit was wrong. Including don't knows that was incorrect.
In referendums eg Quebec 1995, Don't Knows are often decisive
You think DKs would break by at least 13:1 for one side? When you Quote a VI poll and refer to Party X getting Y% do you include or exclude DKs? If it makes you happier I will modify my statement to "57% of voters who have an opinion think that Brexit was wrong". OK? But I look forward to all of your comments on opinion polls including DKs from now on.
To clarify on my post below, I wouldn't agree that we're at the end stage, judging by the increasing doubts of the senior Brexiters quoted below, but where I do agree is that we might stay out of the EU for a long time until or unless any more positive or self-confident campaign for the EU gains traction.
EFTA/EEA is really the big coming political issue, and it's going to take some serious guts.
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
Classic bit of moving the goalposts there.
You said "More than half say we shouldn't have done it." That is untrue. Anything else is irrelevant in this context.
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
We are not talking about those who think it was right we were talking about your statement that more than 50% of voters think Brexit was wrong. Including don't knows that was incorrect.
In referendums eg Quebec 1995, Don't Knows are often decisive
You think DKs would break by at least 13:1 for one side? When you Quote a VI poll and refer to Party X getting Y% do you include or exclude DKs? If it makes you happier I will modify my statement to "57% of voters who have an opinion think that Brexit was wrong". OK? But I look forward to all of your comments on opinion polls including DKs from now on.
Don't Knows should also be looked at in voting intention polls too eg it was Don't Knows breaking decisively for the Tories in 1992 and 2015 and to an extent for Labour in 2017 that meant the headline voting intention figures were wrong.
In the 2016 EU referendum too most final polls had Remain ahead but most Don't Knows went Leave so Leave narrowly won
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
Bloody woke anti-gov Telegraph taking Burble out of context.
There seems to have been a lot of soul searching over Brexit in recent days by Remainers and Leavers alike. Why is this? It's surely because Boris is discredited / on his way out. The vast personality of Boris has obscured British politics for a long time now. He casts a long shadow. We will soon be looking about us afresh in the post-Boris universe. This can be nothing but healthy.
That’s brilliant. It’s actually got a T34 on it. On a rock. With a clock. Under a parasol
Ahem, one of the IS (Joseph Stalin) series I think. He knew which side his bread was buttered, and who was doing the buttering.
It is indeed, and more specifically, an IS-2 heavy tank. The 122mm gun with long muzzle brake, turret and radiator covers are diagnostic.
Another reason for it to be on Zhukov's dog and bone is, as it happens, the appearance of this absolutely brutal-looking tank in many photos of the Battle of Berlin (ground level, as opposed to the air battle). It's almost symbolic of that downfall. This is a nice example (with the white stripe an inter-Allied air recognition symbol).
IMO they rather bury the lead... which is that Japanese railway companies aren't really railway companies. They are real estate companies that happen to have a railway business which contributes just 1/3 of their sales!
Other factors seem to include smarter competition, high tolls on motorways, higher population density...
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
I think we’ll possibly join EFTA or something like it but I think that will be it
That needs the brave politician to nail Farage and co's manipulation on immigration, though. Who could that be ?
Right now? Who knows. But there will be politicians going forward who can make the case for EFTA/EEA should they choose.
Irrespective of that particular issue, the idea that we will never again have a PM who is clear minded and confident enough to take the country along in the way Thatcher or Blair did is sad, and I hope overly pessimistic. I would hope that Johnson is the extreme exception rather than the rule.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
Classic bit of moving the goalposts there.
You said "More than half say we shouldn't have done it." That is untrue. Anything else is irrelevant in this context.
I apologise unreservedly. I thought we normally dropped DKs from this kind of discussion, like we do with VI polls. I was obviously wrong in this and I am sincerely sorry if anyone was unwittingly misled by my statement. I will of course be monitoring all further polling discussions and will expect a similar unreserved apology from anyone else who excludes don't knows. We all know that HYUFD especially is always keen to own up to any mistakes. To correct the record: 49% of voters think Brexit was wrong. 37% think it was right. 14% have no opinion. Excluding those who have no opinion, 57% think it was wrong, and 43% think it was right. Once again, I was wrong and I am sorry.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
Bloody woke anti-gov Telegraph taking Burble out of context.
If you read the article that isn't what she said at all. She actually says society should stop obsessing about Oxbridge entry as the sole measure of social mobility. As she states if your parents are unemployed just getting a paid job means social mobility for you
There seems to have been a lot of soul searching over Brexit in recent days by Remainers and Leavers alike. Why is this? It's surely because Boris is discredited / on his way out. The vast personality of Boris has obscured British politics for a long time now. He casts a long shadow. We will soon be looking about us afresh in the post-Boris universe. This can be nothing but healthy.
Are you implying this is the end of an era which few can yet see?
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
Bloody woke anti-gov Telegraph taking Burble out of context.
If you read the article that isn't what she said at all. She actually says society should stop obsessing about Oxbridge entry as the sole measure of social mobility. As she states if your parents are unemployed just getting a paid job means social mobility for you
I expect a fruity letter from Enraged of Epping to the Telegraph in that case.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
Bloody woke anti-gov Telegraph taking Burble out of context.
Even the Telegraph takes things out of context for clicks these days.
It’s also a speech she hasn’t even delivered yet.
In her first speech as the Chairman of the Social Mobility Commission, Katharine Birbalsingh will argue that there is too much focus on those from deprived backgrounds getting into the top universities or elite jobs like surgeons, bankers and CEOs.
Instead, the emphasis should be on people taking small steps up the ladder, from the bottom to the middle rungs, she will argue as she vows to tackle uncomfortable truths head-on.
“We want to move away from the notion that social mobility should just be about the ‘long’ upward mobility from the bottom to the top - the person who is born into a family in social housing and becomes a banker or CEO,” Ms Birbalsingh is expected to say.
“We want to promote a broader view of social mobility, for a wider range of people, who want to improve their lives, sometimes in smaller steps.
“This means looking at how to improve opportunities for those at the bottom - not just by making elite pathways for the few - but by thinking about those who would otherwise be left behind.”
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
Because most people are getting zero per cent and aren't going on strike.
Is that the case?
Don't the stats show that private sector workers are getting fairly chunky pay rises (roughly inflation matching?) whilst public sector workers are on 0-2%?
Nobody likes paying more to get a job done, but staff cost what they cost.
Private sector pay is indeed rising as a whole, but behind the stats it appears that people are getting new jobs rather than pay rises - at least outside what were minimum wage jobs before the pandemic.
Do staff on the railways (as with many public sector organisations) still get seniority pay? So even if there’s no formal pay rise, they still move up a grade every year?
I’ve not posted in a long time but I’ve seen this misconception a lot.
There is currently no progression at all through the pay bands in most public sector organisations. There may be a few exceptional cases but in my arms length Osborne blocked all pay band progression about ten years ago and it hasn’t been reversed. There’s not even performance progression.
To give you an idea of what career development is like in most of the public sector right now, the only way to get more pay is to get promoted or move roles. There’s no scope for pay rises within roles, even in shortage occupations like engineering. The pension used to keep it competitive but basic pay is being so badly eroded by inflation that I’m paid (in total) about 15% less than in the private sector.
I love my job, have no kids and given how ruinous to my mental health my last private sector role was I’d be wary of going back into that world without serious personal recommendations, so for me the remuneration isn’t critical. For my colleagues who have families and dependents it is becoming a serious issue. And these aren’t the comedy pen pushers beloved of right-wing caricatures, they’re world-class scientists with very high impact. They lead international scientific committees and one is on the SAGE list in case of an emergency in our field. If the state wants the best and brightest contributing to the public good they need to pay up. It doesn’t need to be silly money, just better than survival money.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices.
Aren't we told the railways are in high demand? How often have people complained you can't get a seat? If so, why can it not be self funding?
Railways should find a market equilibrium where their revenues and expenditure matches, which means charging customers whatever it takes to pay the staff.
If you want to pay staff more then great, but your customers have to pay for that. If you want to charge your customers less then great, but you have less revenue for staff wages.
The problem with this is that in most parts of the country one railway company has a complete monopoly so there's no incentive to be price competitive. I need to go to London to work and there's no other way to get there so Thameslink can charge me whatever ridiculous price they like (and they do). I don't know what the solution is but it's deeply frustrating.
If you need to go to London then you should pay whatever you need to do so in order to fund that. If I need to go to Manchester then I pay whatever I need to in order to fund that.
It may be frustrating but its your transport, you should pay for it. RMT staff should be paid from your expenditure, just as petrol forecourt staff are paid by my expenditure.
If the cost of going into London becomes too much then you will ultimately decide either that you don't need to go into London anymore afterall, or find alternative transport.
There’s a logical case for subsidising rail transport. Alternatives have negative externalities (congestion, pollution) that governments may make a policy decision to address. And the way to do this is to reduce the cost to the consumer of using rail transport below the market clearing price
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
Classic bit of moving the goalposts there.
You said "More than half say we shouldn't have done it." That is untrue. Anything else is irrelevant in this context.
I apologise unreservedly. I thought we normally dropped DKs from this kind of discussion, like we do with VI polls. I was obviously wrong in this and I am sincerely sorry if anyone was unwittingly misled by my statement. I will of course be monitoring all further polling discussions and will expect a similar unreserved apology from anyone else who excludes don't knows. We all know that HYUFD especially is always keen to own up to any mistakes. To correct the record: 49% of voters think Brexit was wrong. 37% think it was right. 14% have no opinion. Excluding those who have no opinion, 57% think it was wrong, and 43% think it was right. Once again, I was wrong and I am sorry.
LOL. Nice sarcasm. I don't dictate what you can and can't write here. I just point out what I think are factual inaccuracies. The day anyone actually changes what they write based on my responses will be a dark day for the PB.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
Bloody woke anti-gov Telegraph taking Burble out of context.
Even the Telegraph take things out of context for clicks these days.
It’s also a speech she hasn’t even delivered yet.
In her first speech as the Chairman of the Social Mobility Commission, Katharine Birbalsingh will argue that there is too much focus on those from deprived backgrounds getting into the top universities or elite jobs like surgeons, bankers and CEOs.
Instead, the emphasis should be on people taking small steps up the ladder, from the bottom to the middle rungs, she will argue as she vows to tackle uncomfortable truths head-on.
“We want to move away from the notion that social mobility should just be about the ‘long’ upward mobility from the bottom to the top - the person who is born into a family in social housing and becomes a banker or CEO,” Ms Birbalsingh is expected to say.
“We want to promote a broader view of social mobility, for a wider range of people, who want to improve their lives, sometimes in smaller steps.
“This means looking at how to improve opportunities for those at the bottom - not just by making elite pathways for the few - but by thinking about those who would otherwise be left behind.”
Well, what many Tories will hear is: don't worry, we're not going to let the proles compete with your children and grandchildren.
Japan The privatized rail network in Japan requires few subsidies. The three biggest companies, JR East, JR Central and JR-West (which account for 60% of the passenger market) receive no state subsidy.[22]
Another area where we should be more like the Pacific and not like Europe it seems. And if you've ever been to Japan you'll know they have a very functional rail network there.
I think we can learn a lot from Japan, yes. Their rail system is great. But there was HUUUUUUUGE state investment in the infrastructure over the years.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
I always find stuff like this interesting, how the general public's perception is different to obsessive's. Outside of an election, I think perceptions of leaders and the day to day of politics has low penetrance into the public consciousness. At least, I hope so, for Starmer's sake (I've said before, I think Starmer also thinks this and is relying on it).
There seems to have been a lot of soul searching over Brexit in recent days by Remainers and Leavers alike. Why is this? It's surely because Boris is discredited / on his way out. The vast personality of Boris has obscured British politics for a long time now. He casts a long shadow. We will soon be looking about us afresh in the post-Boris universe. This can be nothing but healthy.
Are you implying this is the end of an era which few can yet see?
Boris is dead, but considering the state the species Tory is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
Petrol up 1.6p between Tuesday and Wednesday. Now at average of 182.3 per litre. 55 litres is over £100 for the first time.
I filled my car up yesterday on the A3 near Guildford. It cost £120. I staggered a bit returning to the car and the left side of my face went numb and I felt a tingle in my left arm. I was cold with shock. I drove straight to A&E at the nearby Royal Guildford hospital.
Straight in. ECG, bloods, CT scan, given fluids etc. I was kept in for four hours. All clear. Fantastic service.
That's what the price of petrol does to you. Shocking. True story.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
There are no data yet on A level results at her school according to the government. Other highly selective state sixth form colleges (eg Harris Westminster) tend to do about average once you control for the intake. Her school does well above average at GCSE though, controlling for its intake. Personally I find her rather grating as she seems overly keen on self promotion and playing to the gallery, but she is clearly a good educator. The context of her remarks is interesting because up to now the whole Oxbridge thing has been her mantra, so she is clearly repositioning herself in her new job. I wonder whether her analysis is driven by actual data though. For instance, given that long term unemployment is rather uncommon and is usually related to health conditions, I would imagine (but don't have the data myself and may be wrong) that most children of long term unemployed people do in fact get a job.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
Bloody woke anti-gov Telegraph taking Burble out of context.
I know Katherine quite well and have immense respect for what she does at Michaela (although some of it eyebrow raising). But the children are happy and the results are fantastic.
Frankly this doesn’t sound like something she would have said. I suspect it’s the Telegraph “interpreting” her comments in their headline.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
Isn't that just one selected response to pull in the listeners? I'm sure "Who?" would be a more common reply.
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
We are not talking about those who think it was right we were talking about your statement that more than 50% of voters think Brexit was wrong. Including don't knows that was incorrect.
In referendums eg Quebec 1995, Don't Knows are often decisive
As usual you are not comparing like with like so this is mathematically illiterate. In an actual election there aren't any 'Don't knows' votes. You either vote for or against, whereas in a poll there are 'Don't knows'.
So the 'Don't know's' have 3 options. They can vote for, against or importantly abstain in a real election.
It is statistically highly improbable that in a split of 37/49/14 that it won't get the 49 vote share to 50 when the 'Don't know's' are reallocated. They don't even have to vote with the 49% as by simply not voting they boost both for and against and boost the 49% by more than the 37% because they will be boosted in the same ratio if they don't cast a vote (this is maths and nothing to do with the decision of the voters).
It would require nearly all the 'Don't know' to actually vote and vote for the 37% on an absolutely massive scale for the 49% to not top 50%.
And of course this is a poll in the first place so has statistical errors built in and these are far greater than this possibility so you would be better arguing that it is a poll and polls can be wrong than the argument you are putting which has a much lower probability.
Therefore one can say with almost certainty that more than 50% think leaving was a mistake (allowing for the statistical limitations of the original poll)
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
Classic bit of moving the goalposts there.
You said "More than half say we shouldn't have done it." That is untrue. Anything else is irrelevant in this context.
I apologise unreservedly. I thought we normally dropped DKs from this kind of discussion, like we do with VI polls. I was obviously wrong in this and I am sincerely sorry if anyone was unwittingly misled by my statement. I will of course be monitoring all further polling discussions and will expect a similar unreserved apology from anyone else who excludes don't knows. We all know that HYUFD especially is always keen to own up to any mistakes. To correct the record: 49% of voters think Brexit was wrong. 37% think it was right. 14% have no opinion. Excluding those who have no opinion, 57% think it was wrong, and 43% think it was right. Once again, I was wrong and I am sorry.
LOL. Nice sarcasm. I don't dictate what you can and can't write here. I just point out what I think are factual inaccuracies. The day anyone actually changes what they write based on my responses will be a dark day for the PB.
I wasn't being entirely sarcastic. I was sloppy in my language. I work with numbers for a living and so I know it is important to be precise about these things. I mean, it is obvious to me from that poll that any reasonable treatment of the DKs will show a majority thinks it was the wrong decision, but I should have been more precise in how I phrased it.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
What I was thinking is that those children have - on that criterion - already had that potential unlocked. "on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven" is already doiong well. I'm actually wondering how far this Sixth Form is predating on other schools and claiming credit for their work.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
That Harris sixth-form college mentioned does seem to do extremely well. I wonder what the social profile of the pupils is.
Japan The privatized rail network in Japan requires few subsidies. The three biggest companies, JR East, JR Central and JR-West (which account for 60% of the passenger market) receive no state subsidy.[22]
Another area where we should be more like the Pacific and not like Europe it seems. And if you've ever been to Japan you'll know they have a very functional rail network there.
I think we can learn a lot from Japan, yes. Their rail system is great. But there was HUUUUUUUGE state investment in the infrastructure over the years.
And they are much closer to parity in treatment of road and rail transport.
The reason rail seems much more expensive than road in Britain is largely because roads are heavily subsidised (indeed, 100% subsidised in all but a few cases) while railways are not.
There are 3 main sources of cost for transportation: 1. the infrastructure it runs on, 2. the vehicle / rolling stock itself, 3. the fuel used to propel it. Given nobody is suggesting the taxpayer should fully fund 2 or 3, a level playing field would involve either all of the infrastructure managed by network rail being 100% government funded, like the roads; or for drivers to pay to use roads.
EDIT: there's a 4th cost which is the staff driving / running the system of course. On that one it makes sense for rail to be more expensive because when we drive we are in effect providing the labour ourselves for free.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
At A level it is selective in the specific sense of entry being dependent on GCSE grades. But this is true of most A level providers. The only question is how high the bar is set. They set it higher than most. The key number is the progress score, which measures exam results conditioned on the quality of the intake. Her school does well on this at GCSE but there are no data yet for sixth form results.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
Bloody woke anti-gov Telegraph taking Burble out of context.
I know Katherine quite well and have immense respect for what she does at Michaela (although some of it eyebrow raising). But the children are happy and the results are fantastic.
Frankly this doesn’t sound like something she would have said. I suspect it’s the Telegraph “interpreting” her comments in their headline.
I thought that she was making some reasonable points this morning on Today, but also somewhat underplaying the importance of inequality.
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
We are not talking about those who think it was right we were talking about your statement that more than 50% of voters think Brexit was wrong. Including don't knows that was incorrect.
In referendums eg Quebec 1995, Don't Knows are often decisive
As usual you are not comparing like with like so this is mathematically illiterate. In an actual election there aren't any 'Don't knows' votes. You either vote for or against, whereas in a poll there are 'Don't knows'.
So the 'Don't know's' have 3 options. They can vote for, against or importantly abstain in a real election.
It is statistically highly improbable that in a split of 37/49/14 that it won't get the 49 vote share to 50 when the 'Don't know's' are reallocated. They don't even have to vote with the 49% as by simply not voting they boost both for and against and boost the 49% by more than the 37% because they will be boosted in the same ratio if they don't cast a vote (this is maths and nothing to do with the decision of the voters).
It would require nearly all the 'Don't know' to actually vote and vote for the 37% on an absolutely massive scale for the 49% to not top 50%.
And of course this is a poll in the first place so has statistical errors built in and these are far greater than this possibility so you would be better arguing that it is a poll and polls can be wrong than the argument you are putting which has a much lower probability.
Therefore one can say with almost certainty that more than 50% think leaving was a mistake (allowing for the statistical limitations of the original poll)
He said more than 50% think Brexit was wrong, he was wrong to do so as even he himself has admitted once don't knows are included. As I have already pointed out in 2016 most don't knows went Leave, hence Leave won even though most final polls had Remain ahead
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices.
Aren't we told the railways are in high demand? How often have people complained you can't get a seat? If so, why can it not be self funding?
Railways should find a market equilibrium where their revenues and expenditure matches, which means charging customers whatever it takes to pay the staff.
If you want to pay staff more then great, but your customers have to pay for that. If you want to charge your customers less then great, but you have less revenue for staff wages.
The problem with this is that in most parts of the country one railway company has a complete monopoly so there's no incentive to be price competitive. I need to go to London to work and there's no other way to get there so Thameslink can charge me whatever ridiculous price they like (and they do). I don't know what the solution is but it's deeply frustrating.
If you need to go to London then you should pay whatever you need to do so in order to fund that. If I need to go to Manchester then I pay whatever I need to in order to fund that.
It may be frustrating but its your transport, you should pay for it. RMT staff should be paid from your expenditure, just as petrol forecourt staff are paid by my expenditure.
If the cost of going into London becomes too much then you will ultimately decide either that you don't need to go into London anymore afterall, or find alternative transport.
There’s a logical case for subsidising rail transport. Alternatives have negative externalities (congestion, pollution) that governments may make a policy decision to address. And the way to do this is to reduce the cost to the consumer of using rail transport below the market clearing price
Roads are heavily taxed already to deal with the pollution so that argument is null and void. Other competitors to rail like cycling, working from home, or walking can actually generate less pollution too.
Congestion isn't an externality in the same way it is a cost of the process. People who are on the road suffer the congestion, anyone who isn't using the road doesn't. Railways have congestion too which is why delays etc happen on railways as when one train has issues, the rails are so congested it creates knock on problems for other trains. Or too many people crowding in means the carriage is congested so you can't get a seat. So should train passengers be taxed for the congestion they're causing?
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
That Harris sixth-form college mentioned does seem to do extremely well. I wonder what the social profile of the pupils is.
It does well in absolute terms, but is only about average when you allow for its intake, since it is highly selective with tests and interviews as well as having minimum benchmarks for GCSE results. In other words, the school is full of smart kids and they fulfill their potential on average but don't outperform. In terms of intake it takes kids from all over London and sets lower entry standards for kids on free school meals so that it isn't entirely captured by the middle classes. I should declare an interest as my daughter will probably be going there in September.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
That Harris sixth-form college mentioned does seem to do extremely well. I wonder what the social profile of the pupils is.
It does well in absolute terms, but is only about average when you allow for its intake, since it is highly selective with tests and interviews as well as having minimum benchmarks for GCSE results. In other words, the school is full of smart kids and they fulfill their potential on average but don't outperform. In terms of intake it takes kids from all over London and sets lower entry standards for kids on free school meals so that it isn't entirely captured by the middle classes. I should declare an interest as my daughter will probably be going there in September.
Is that the one that's run by Wesminster ? They always were the Liberal counterpart to Tory Eton, after all.
Brexit cheerleader Iain Martin in The Times today has written another in what seems to be a growing series of articles subtitled "Brexit, it's a bit shit isn't it..."
Exports to the EU in 2021 were down almost 12 per cent on 2018. UK exports to the rest of the world fell by about half that percentage. In January the City broker IG said exports to the EU may fall by almost 8 per cent again by 2025.
There’s no use some of my fellow Brexiteers putting their fingers in their ears and humming Rule Britannia. To deny the downsides of Brexit on trade with the EU is to deny reality.
It is dawning on quite a few Brexiteers that what Gove said privately in 2016 before the referendum might turn out to be prescient.
If the electorate deems Brexit to be a failure then they will eventually vote to overturn it.
Then Brexiteers will be like the Japanese civilians on Okinawa in May/June 1945.
We cannot overturn Brexit now. We could have before we left with a second referendum, but now we can't just capitulate and bend over and take our punishment from Johnny Foreigner.
Brexit has to be made to work.I don't know how, but then I didn't create the problem in the first place.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
That Harris sixth-form college mentioned does seem to do extremely well. I wonder what the social profile of the pupils is.
It does well in absolute terms, but is only about average when you allow for its intake, since it is highly selective with tests and interviews as well as having minimum benchmarks for GCSE results. In other words, the school is full of smart kids and they fulfill their potential on average but don't outperform. In terms of intake it takes kids from all over London and sets lower entry standards for kids on free school meals so that it isn't entirely captured by the middle classes. I should declare an interest as my daughter will probably be going there in September.
Is that the one that's run by Wesminster ? They always were the Whig/ Liberal counterpart to Tory Eton, after all.
They have a relationship with Westminster but it is much less than advertised, apparently, as it seems to be mostly about Westminster ticking its boxes to justify its charitable status. As far as I'm concerned the less involvement from them the better.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
How many trains a day should there be for an interstate 399 mile journey? If that's not a frequently travelled route then yours being the last (or only) train a day is absolutely reasonable.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
Brexit cheerleader Iain Martin in The Times today has written another in what seems to be a growing series of articles subtitled "Brexit, it's a bit shit isn't it..."
Exports to the EU in 2021 were down almost 12 per cent on 2018. UK exports to the rest of the world fell by about half that percentage. In January the City broker IG said exports to the EU may fall by almost 8 per cent again by 2025.
There’s no use some of my fellow Brexiteers putting their fingers in their ears and humming Rule Britannia. To deny the downsides of Brexit on trade with the EU is to deny reality.
Government departments have been ordered to draw up contingency plans to deal with any ensuing crisis, which includes making sure supermarket shelves do not go empty
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
How many trains a day should there be for an interstate 399 mile journey? If that's not a frequently travelled route then yours being the last (or only) train a day is absolutely reasonable.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
The only reason no trains operate between Mersey and Seine is that the Tories fucked up and didn't connect HS2 and HS1. As discussed here ad nauseam.
The true comparison is between, say, Dundee and London. Which has a good number of trains a day, albeit with one easy change in some cases.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
That Harris sixth-form college mentioned does seem to do extremely well. I wonder what the social profile of the pupils is.
It does well in absolute terms, but is only about average when you allow for its intake, since it is highly selective with tests and interviews as well as having minimum benchmarks for GCSE results. In other words, the school is full of smart kids and they fulfill their potential on average but don't outperform. In terms of intake it takes kids from all over London and sets lower entry standards for kids on free school meals so that it isn't entirely captured by the middle classes. I should declare an interest as my daughter will probably be going there in September.
Is that the one that's run by Wesminster ? They always were the Whig/ Liberal counterpart to Tory Eton, after all.
They have a relationship with Westminster but it is much less than advertised, apparently, as it seems to be mostly about Westminster ticking its boxes to justify its charitable status. As far as I'm concerned the less involvement from them the better.
My wife taught at Westminster for a while in the '90s and always said good things about it - not a hooray atmosphere, much more liberal-minded than expected and academic. And she voted for Corbyn !
On super-heads and super-schools, it's interesting (and I don't think coincidental) how often they are based in London, which has seen huge improvements in educational results over the last 30 years.
While I'm not denigrating their achievements, it would be interesting to see if Birbalsingh, Wilshaw and the others could replicate their success in white working-class schools in, dare I say it, Red Wall type places. I think it would be harder. It's rare to hear about super-heads or super-schools in Stoke, Grimsby or Hull, for example; though I'm sure they exist, they don't get (or seek?) the same publicity as the London elite.
Boris is a barrier to these voters going Tory. Five of the eight Wakefield voters we spoke to said they would not vote Conservative again as long as Boris Johnson were leader.
The other three were on the fence. But the bar was high for what they said they would need to see. 5
Nor has the government's cost of living announcement made a difference.
Asked about it, voters described it as a "joke", a "drop in the ocean" and a "bluff" that was not going to make a difference to their pockets in the face of rising bills and taxes. 6
None of the voters we spoke to are switching to Labour. The main reason? Keir Starmer. They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake". 7
The link between these voters and Labour remains resolutely cut. They feel that Labour has "lost its identity" and is out of touch with "the working classes" - and that they have no plan or vision for the country. 8
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
That Harris sixth-form college mentioned does seem to do extremely well. I wonder what the social profile of the pupils is.
It does well in absolute terms, but is only about average when you allow for its intake, since it is highly selective with tests and interviews as well as having minimum benchmarks for GCSE results. In other words, the school is full of smart kids and they fulfill their potential on average but don't outperform. In terms of intake it takes kids from all over London and sets lower entry standards for kids on free school meals so that it isn't entirely captured by the middle classes. I should declare an interest as my daughter will probably be going there in September.
Is that the one that's run by Wesminster ? They always were the Whig/ Liberal counterpart to Tory Eton, after all.
They have a relationship with Westminster but it is much less than advertised, apparently, as it seems to be mostly about Westminster ticking its boxes to justify its charitable status. As far as I'm concerned the less involvement from them the better.
My wife taught at Westminster for a while in the '90s and always said good things about it - not a hooray atmosphere, liberal and academic.
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
We are not talking about those who think it was right we were talking about your statement that more than 50% of voters think Brexit was wrong. Including don't knows that was incorrect.
In referendums eg Quebec 1995, Don't Knows are often decisive
As usual you are not comparing like with like so this is mathematically illiterate. In an actual election there aren't any 'Don't knows' votes. You either vote for or against, whereas in a poll there are 'Don't knows'.
So the 'Don't know's' have 3 options. They can vote for, against or importantly abstain in a real election.
It is statistically highly improbable that in a split of 37/49/14 that it won't get the 49 vote share to 50 when the 'Don't know's' are reallocated. They don't even have to vote with the 49% as by simply not voting they boost both for and against and boost the 49% by more than the 37% because they will be boosted in the same ratio if they don't cast a vote (this is maths and nothing to do with the decision of the voters).
It would require nearly all the 'Don't know' to actually vote and vote for the 37% on an absolutely massive scale for the 49% to not top 50%.
And of course this is a poll in the first place so has statistical errors built in and these are far greater than this possibility so you would be better arguing that it is a poll and polls can be wrong than the argument you are putting which has a much lower probability.
Therefore one can say with almost certainty that more than 50% think leaving was a mistake (allowing for the statistical limitations of the original poll)
He said more than 50% think Brexit was wrong, he was wrong to do so as even he himself has admitted once don't knows are included
He is not wrong. Richard pointed out his wording was technically incorrect, which he has accepted. The point he is making is absolutely correct. You are implying that if the 'Don't knows' are taken into account the result may be reversed. You even gave examples where the 'Don't knows' split unevenly (Quebec) so don't try and deny this by your usual moving of goal posts..
Even if the 'Don't knows' split spectacularly unevenly (for the reasons given in my other post) they probably can't reach 50% plus whereas it is almost an absolute certainty the 49% will. As stated there is a much greater probability that the poll is wrong. Only a small number of 'Don't know's' abstaining will tip the 49% over the 50%.
Presumably Quebec had a much different split to 37/49/14 where this is possible. Also remember a poll is not and election so again the poll can be wrong. Nobody is denying 'Don't knows' can have an impact, but it is practically impossible when the split is 37/49/14.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
How many trains a day should there be for an interstate 399 mile journey? If that's not a frequently travelled route then yours being the last (or only) train a day is absolutely reasonable.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
The USA isn't Europe - distances are far greater and there isn't an international border in the middle.
A better example would be Munich to Berlin which has trains every 2 hours.
Government departments have been ordered to draw up contingency plans to deal with any ensuing crisis, which includes making sure supermarket shelves do not go empty
Ah, so it isn’t the seventies then. Boris has managed to take us back to the twenties.
So what does all this mean for the upcoming by-election?
None of this group said they were voting Conservative. But none were voting Labour either. Most said they would likely not vote, or vote for a smaller party. Some said they had not been aware it was taking place. 9
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
That Harris sixth-form college mentioned does seem to do extremely well. I wonder what the social profile of the pupils is.
It does well in absolute terms, but is only about average when you allow for its intake, since it is highly selective with tests and interviews as well as having minimum benchmarks for GCSE results. In other words, the school is full of smart kids and they fulfill their potential on average but don't outperform. In terms of intake it takes kids from all over London and sets lower entry standards for kids on free school meals so that it isn't entirely captured by the middle classes. I should declare an interest as my daughter will probably be going there in September.
Is that the one that's run by Wesminster ? They always were the Whig/ Liberal counterpart to Tory Eton, after all.
They have a relationship with Westminster but it is much less than advertised, apparently, as it seems to be mostly about Westminster ticking its boxes to justify its charitable status. As far as I'm concerned the less involvement from them the better.
My wife taught at Westminster for a while in the '90s and always said good things about it - not a hooray atmosphere, liberal and academic.
Two words: Nick Clegg.
Tony Benn as well, though, I can see from their wikipedia page.
Petrol up 1.6p between Tuesday and Wednesday. Now at average of 182.3 per litre. 55 litres is over £100 for the first time.
I filled my car up yesterday on the A3 near Guildford. It cost £120. I staggered a bit returning to the car and the left side of my face went numb and I felt a tingle in my left arm. I was cold with shock. I drove straight to A&E at the nearby Royal Guildford hospital.
Straight in. ECG, bloods, CT scan, given fluids etc. I was kept in for four hours. All clear. Fantastic service.
That's what the price of petrol does to you. Shocking. True story.
Not sure if you are joking, but generally if that happens again please don't drive - get someone to call an ambulance or do so yourself. You do not want to have a stroke/heart attack while driving.
Brexit cheerleader Iain Martin in The Times today has written another in what seems to be a growing series of articles subtitled "Brexit, it's a bit shit isn't it..."
Exports to the EU in 2021 were down almost 12 per cent on 2018. UK exports to the rest of the world fell by about half that percentage. In January the City broker IG said exports to the EU may fall by almost 8 per cent again by 2025.
There’s no use some of my fellow Brexiteers putting their fingers in their ears and humming Rule Britannia. To deny the downsides of Brexit on trade with the EU is to deny reality.
It is dawning on quite a few Brexiteers that what Gove said privately in 2016 before the referendum might turn out to be prescient.
If the electorate deems Brexit to be a failure then they will eventually vote to overturn it.
Then Brexiteers will be like the Japanese civilians on Okinawa in May/June 1945.
We cannot overturn Brexit now. We could have before we left with a second referendum, but now we can't just capitulate and bend over and take our punishment from Johnny Foreigner.
Brexit has to be made to work.I don't know how, but then I didn't create the problem in the first place.
It's a real conundrum. Unfortunately the political attack line 'X is proposing Y because X wants to cancel Brexit' still has considerable power. Sir Keir and Labour are particularly paralysed by all this. Until the toxicity of the Brexit wars fades we're rather stuck.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
That Harris sixth-form college mentioned does seem to do extremely well. I wonder what the social profile of the pupils is.
It does well in absolute terms, but is only about average when you allow for its intake, since it is highly selective with tests and interviews as well as having minimum benchmarks for GCSE results. In other words, the school is full of smart kids and they fulfill their potential on average but don't outperform. In terms of intake it takes kids from all over London and sets lower entry standards for kids on free school meals so that it isn't entirely captured by the middle classes. I should declare an interest as my daughter will probably be going there in September.
Is that the one that's run by Wesminster ? They always were the Whig/ Liberal counterpart to Tory Eton, after all.
They have a relationship with Westminster but it is much less than advertised, apparently, as it seems to be mostly about Westminster ticking its boxes to justify its charitable status. As far as I'm concerned the less involvement from them the better.
My wife taught at Westminster for a while in the '90s and always said good things about it - not a hooray atmosphere, liberal and academic.
Two words: Nick Clegg.
Tony Benn as well, though, I can see from their page.
So what does all this mean for the upcoming by-election?
None of this group said they were voting Conservative. But none were voting Labour either. Most said they would likely not vote, or vote for a smaller party. Some said they had not been aware it was taking place. 9
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
That wouldn't have worked, and, in fact, would have depressed the Remain vote even further. Leave would have had an even bigger win.
Most people don't feel an emotional attachment to the European project. What you describe is of passionate interest to perhaps 10-15% of the population, mainly internationalists in metropolitan areas, but they are highly unrepresentative of the broader electorate.
Par for our European relationship has been, and remains, membership of a broader "common market" for trade, with a say in its technical rules, but respecting our traditions and sensitivities, a level of reciprocal free movement for work - but with clear limits to it and a brake if excessive - and absolutely no part in political, social, fiscal or economic union.
Rejoiners have no better answers as they simply hope that Brexit will fail and vindicate them so we can go back "all in" but that won't be the basis of a sustainable settlement - it will just trade one set of problems for another.
Both sides need to get real and that includes EU fanatics who shout "unicorns" or "cherrypicking" at anything that looks like a flexed model.
'Both sides' doesn't really reflect the reality, though. 'Rejoiners' have little or no influence in the opposition parties - even the Lib Dems are fairly realistic about that.
The majority of those who voted remain take a far more pragmatic view of future relations with the EU than do the Leavers who are in government.
I think it will come out pretty rapidly once Lib/Lab regain office, to be honest.
Cameron started in 2010 with "we won't let matters rest there".
Getting to where Norway is, is clearly the right position - as was pretty obvious from the start (and as some leavers said during the referendum). Ellwood is unlikely to be alone, and in private I expect a fair few Tory politicians would concede as much.
Unless the evidence of damage and pressure from the damaged grows to the point where something has to be done, it may well take a new government before we make the move - but make it we will, sooner or later.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
She might be about to- the sixth form at MCS was the last bit to open- I can't remember if the current batch is their first A Level cohort or second. Certainly the first batch to do A Level exams.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
"selective"
Selective based on children with the drive and ambition to do better, but from a background and area that has not facilitated that in the past. It’s all about unlocking these individuals potential
That Harris sixth-form college mentioned does seem to do extremely well. I wonder what the social profile of the pupils is.
It does well in absolute terms, but is only about average when you allow for its intake, since it is highly selective with tests and interviews as well as having minimum benchmarks for GCSE results. In other words, the school is full of smart kids and they fulfill their potential on average but don't outperform. In terms of intake it takes kids from all over London and sets lower entry standards for kids on free school meals so that it isn't entirely captured by the middle classes. I should declare an interest as my daughter will probably be going there in September.
Is that the one that's run by Wesminster ? They always were the Whig/ Liberal counterpart to Tory Eton, after all.
They have a relationship with Westminster but it is much less than advertised, apparently, as it seems to be mostly about Westminster ticking its boxes to justify its charitable status. As far as I'm concerned the less involvement from them the better.
My wife taught at Westminster for a while in the '90s and always said good things about it - not a hooray atmosphere, liberal and academic.
Two words: Nick Clegg.
Tony Benn as well, though, I can see from their page.
Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, the heavenly bodies will be shaken, and HYUFD will start to lecture people on the misleading use of stats. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And HYUFD shall say unto Him: thou art not a Proper Conservative.
HYUFD hath already said: JC was a Social Democrat.
The link between these voters and Labour remains resolutely cut. They feel that Labour has "lost its identity" and is out of touch with "the working classes" - and that they have no plan or vision for the country. 8
Thats really interesting, and shows that its not enough for Labour to expect Red Wall voters to just return to the fold. They need a reason to do so. The danger is clear if you look to Scotland. Labour took Scotland for granted for many years, and now are in as bad a place as the Conservatives. The same may happen in the Red Wall. I don't know where the votes go, they may just not bother, giving up on the democratic process altogether.
Maybe its time for the PB party? Some excellent polices get floated on here, and there is a huge breadth of knowledge and experience.
I see the more SDP-ish Chris Huhne is yet another one who went there, looking at their page. If he'd won instead of Clegg, history would have been a bit different, I think..
I've had a sudden flashback to when both Huhne and Clegg answered questions either directly here on PB, or the Guardian, for their respective leadership campaigns - I can't remember which. Huhne was about 12 times as bright as Clegg, I remember.
Are there any other sixth-form colleges like that, with input from a similar school ?
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
We are not talking about those who think it was right we were talking about your statement that more than 50% of voters think Brexit was wrong. Including don't knows that was incorrect.
In referendums eg Quebec 1995, Don't Knows are often decisive
As usual you are not comparing like with like so this is mathematically illiterate. In an actual election there aren't any 'Don't knows' votes. You either vote for or against, whereas in a poll there are 'Don't knows'.
So the 'Don't know's' have 3 options. They can vote for, against or importantly abstain in a real election.
It is statistically highly improbable that in a split of 37/49/14 that it won't get the 49 vote share to 50 when the 'Don't know's' are reallocated. They don't even have to vote with the 49% as by simply not voting they boost both for and against and boost the 49% by more than the 37% because they will be boosted in the same ratio if they don't cast a vote (this is maths and nothing to do with the decision of the voters).
It would require nearly all the 'Don't know' to actually vote and vote for the 37% on an absolutely massive scale for the 49% to not top 50%.
And of course this is a poll in the first place so has statistical errors built in and these are far greater than this possibility so you would be better arguing that it is a poll and polls can be wrong than the argument you are putting which has a much lower probability.
Therefore one can say with almost certainty that more than 50% think leaving was a mistake (allowing for the statistical limitations of the original poll)
He said more than 50% think Brexit was wrong, he was wrong to do so as even he himself has admitted once don't knows are included. As I have already pointed out in 2016 most don't knows went Leave, hence Leave won even though most final polls had Remain ahead
You added the 2nd sentence after I replied so in response to your 2nd sentence:
a) The the remain and leave polling was close unlike the poll you were referring to. They are completely incomparable. Of course the 'Don't knows' can make a difference then. Read the posts. It is mathematically highly improbable they could have in the example you gave, but highly likely when they are close. You just don't understand maths.
b) There is a margin of error in a poll. There isn't in a vote. Polls and votes are different.
So what does all this mean for the upcoming by-election?
None of this group said they were voting Conservative. But none were voting Labour either. Most said they would likely not vote, or vote for a smaller party. Some said they had not been aware it was taking place. 9
I see the more SDP-ish Chris Huhne is yet another one who went there, looking at their page. If he'd won instead of Clegg, history would have been a bit different, I think.,
I've had a sudden flashback to when both Huhne and Clegg answered questions either directly here on PB, or the Guardian, for their leadership campaigns - I can't remember which it was. Huhne was about 12 times as bright as Clegg.
Are there any other sixth-form colleges like that, with input from a similar school ?
On your last question, I have no idea. I have mixed feelings about the place but my daughter wants to go there so I am supportive of her choice, assuming she doesn't screw up her GCSEs (history and physics today, ouch!) or have a last minute change of heart.
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
We are not talking about those who think it was right we were talking about your statement that more than 50% of voters think Brexit was wrong. Including don't knows that was incorrect.
In referendums eg Quebec 1995, Don't Knows are often decisive
As usual you are not comparing like with like so this is mathematically illiterate. In an actual election there aren't any 'Don't knows' votes. You either vote for or against, whereas in a poll there are 'Don't knows'.
So the 'Don't know's' have 3 options. They can vote for, against or importantly abstain in a real election.
It is statistically highly improbable that in a split of 37/49/14 that it won't get the 49 vote share to 50 when the 'Don't know's' are reallocated. They don't even have to vote with the 49% as by simply not voting they boost both for and against and boost the 49% by more than the 37% because they will be boosted in the same ratio if they don't cast a vote (this is maths and nothing to do with the decision of the voters).
It would require nearly all the 'Don't know' to actually vote and vote for the 37% on an absolutely massive scale for the 49% to not top 50%.
And of course this is a poll in the first place so has statistical errors built in and these are far greater than this possibility so you would be better arguing that it is a poll and polls can be wrong than the argument you are putting which has a much lower probability.
Therefore one can say with almost certainty that more than 50% think leaving was a mistake (allowing for the statistical limitations of the original poll)
He said more than 50% think Brexit was wrong, he was wrong to do so as even he himself has admitted once don't knows are included. As I have already pointed out in 2016 most don't knows went Leave, hence Leave won even though most final polls had Remain ahead
All the evidence points to buyer's remorse over Brexit, and I would not dispute for a moment that those saying it was wrong are a majority
However, it is utterly pointless as Brexit has happened, and there is no mechanism you can switch like magic to us being in the EU as we were
Of course there is a debate to be had on the way forward, but the extreme views on both sides are not the answer, but sensible attitudes to improve the present arrangements are
Indeed, even if the majority wanted to re-join, which they do not at present, then the terms and conditions for re-joining and the actual state of the EU at that time bearing in mind the way so many Baltic states see Germany and France as appeasers for Putin, makes it very unlikely to happen in the near future as we develop trading agreements across the world
Everything changes and accepting change is the only way to a successful future
You can't win the argument by holding a gun to people's heads.
There are 2 sustainable positions.
We had one. We threw it away.
We are now in the other, and Brexiteers have noticed it's shit.
This is a lie. The half-in status quo ante was not sustainable - had we voted to Remain the pressure to move to being fully in - including joining the euro and Schengen - would have been irresistible.
Sure, that's what Eurozealots like you want. But there's a reason the Remain campaign didn't tell the truth about it.
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Which is why you can't run a country by the variableness of opinion polls. When elections and referendums happen everyone knows they are for the long term.
It was already six years ago. And a week is a long time in politics.
The idea that you can leave, join, leave, join etc something as significant as the EU every six years or so is ludicrous. Hence the absurdity of thinking the SNP can have a second referendum about now, after 7 or 8 years.
Suppose they had one and won? Would they truly be open to rejoining the UK in a referendum in 2030?
The link between these voters and Labour remains resolutely cut. They feel that Labour has "lost its identity" and is out of touch with "the working classes" - and that they have no plan or vision for the country. 8
Thats really interesting, and shows that its not enough for Labour to expect Red Wall voters to just return to the fold. They need a reason to do so. The danger is clear if you look to Scotland. Labour took Scotland for granted for many years, and now are in as bad a place as the Conservatives. The same may happen in the Red Wall. I don't know where the votes go, they may just not bother, giving up on the democratic process altogether.
Maybe its time for the PB party? Some excellent polices get floated on here, and there is a huge breadth of knowledge and experience.
It’s still surprising that no politician is calling for a temporary scrapping of fuel duty. 52p a litre, can be removed tonight if there’s the political will. It costs about £2bn a month, shows that the government is on top of the cost of living, and most importantly helps to put a lid on the inflation that’s quickly going to be everywhere.
I see the more SDP-ish Chris Huhne is yet another one who went there, looking at their page. If he'd won instead of Clegg, history would have been a bit different, I think..
I've had a sudden flashback to when both Huhne and Clegg answered questions either directly here on PB, or the Guardian, for their respective leadership campaigns - I can't remember which. Huhne was about 12 times as bright as Clegg, I remember.
Are there any other sixth-form colleges like that, with input from a similar school ?
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Clegg was bright enough not to pervert the course of justice and get banged up.
You can't win the argument by holding a gun to people's heads.
There are 2 sustainable positions.
We had one. We threw it away.
We are now in the other, and Brexiteers have noticed it's shit.
This is a lie. The half-in status quo ante was not sustainable - had we voted to Remain the pressure to move to being fully in - including joining the euro and Schengen - would have been irresistible.
Sure, that's what Eurozealots like you want. But there's a reason the Remain campaign didn't tell the truth about it.
I don’t buy that at all. Neither major party was interested in adopting the Euro. Schengen was more likely, but also less impactful.
None of the voters we spoke to are switching to Labour. The main reason? Keir Starmer. They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake". 7
This is a danger for Labour that we have discussed before. It needs to stand for something so voters will turn out for it, otherwise Starmer risks shedding anti-Tory voters to the Greens and LibDems or just staying at home.
Given Birbalsingh gets lots of pupils from working class backgrounds at her free school into Oxbridge and the Russell Group I expect taken out of context
Bloody woke anti-gov Telegraph taking Burble out of context.
Even the Telegraph take things out of context for clicks these days.
It’s also a speech she hasn’t even delivered yet.
In her first speech as the Chairman of the Social Mobility Commission, Katharine Birbalsingh will argue that there is too much focus on those from deprived backgrounds getting into the top universities or elite jobs like surgeons, bankers and CEOs.
Instead, the emphasis should be on people taking small steps up the ladder, from the bottom to the middle rungs, she will argue as she vows to tackle uncomfortable truths head-on.
“We want to move away from the notion that social mobility should just be about the ‘long’ upward mobility from the bottom to the top - the person who is born into a family in social housing and becomes a banker or CEO,” Ms Birbalsingh is expected to say.
“We want to promote a broader view of social mobility, for a wider range of people, who want to improve their lives, sometimes in smaller steps.
“This means looking at how to improve opportunities for those at the bottom - not just by making elite pathways for the few - but by thinking about those who would otherwise be left behind.”
Well, what many Tories will hear is: don't worry, we're not going to let the proles compete with your children and grandchildren.
Can be, in the old Lancashire saying, clog to clogs in three generations in a 'flashy' situation, or a steady rise, generation by generation. My grandfather, in his latter years, used to lament that he 'didn't know why he'd had to go down the mines; his grandfather had been a doctor!' And one day I discovered it was true; the doctor had left Wales, prospered, married money, and left his old life, including an illegitimate son, behind.
I think we’ll possibly join EFTA or something like it but I think that will be it
That needs the brave politician to nail Farage and co's manipulation on immigration, though. Who could that be ?
Right now? Who knows. But there will be politicians going forward who can make the case for EFTA/EEA should they choose.
Irrespective of that particular issue, the idea that we will never again have a PM who is clear minded and confident enough to take the country along in the way Thatcher or Blair did is sad, and I hope overly pessimistic. I would hope that Johnson is the extreme exception rather than the rule.
The thing with Blair is that he looked at the EU issue in domestic politics and decided he didn't want to use his political capital on trying to take the country with him on it. Instead he played along with Eurosceptics, always presented himself as the brave British statesman going to Brussels to battle against the Europeans for British interests.
More than many things this capitulation to the Eurosceptic framing that the EU was something that was done to us, that we struggled against, rather than something we participated in, made the case for Leave.
I don't envisage a future British politician with stacks of political capital deciding to spend it on fundamentally changing our relationship with the EU. They'll make the same calculation as Blair, that more immediate domestic issues are a higher priority.
Comments
Absolutely shredded Mikey Gove this morning on the NI protocol and treatment of cleaners/security staff at No.10.
That’s brilliant. It’s actually got a T34 on it. On a rock. With a clock. Under a parasol
Do staff on the railways (as with many public sector organisations) still get seniority pay? So even if there’s no formal pay rise, they still move up a grade every year?
When you Quote a VI poll and refer to Party X getting Y% do you include or exclude DKs?
If it makes you happier I will modify my statement to "57% of voters who have an opinion think that Brexit was wrong". OK?
But I look forward to all of your comments on opinion polls including DKs from now on.
EFTA/EEA is really the big coming political issue, and it's going to take some serious guts.
You said "More than half say we shouldn't have done it." That is untrue. Anything else is irrelevant in this context.
In the 2016 EU referendum too most final polls had Remain ahead but most Don't Knows went Leave so Leave narrowly won
Another reason for it to be on Zhukov's dog and bone is, as it happens, the appearance of this absolutely brutal-looking tank in many photos of the Battle of Berlin (ground level, as opposed to the air battle). It's almost symbolic of that downfall. This is a nice example (with the white stripe an inter-Allied air recognition symbol).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130556552@N02/16407558923
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet."
Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
https://www.ft.com/content/9f7f044e-1f16-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d
IMO they rather bury the lead... which is that Japanese railway companies aren't really railway companies. They are real estate companies that happen to have a railway business which contributes just 1/3 of their sales!
Other factors seem to include smarter competition, high tolls on motorways, higher population density...
Now at average of 182.3 per litre.
55 litres is over £100 for the first time.
Also, whilst the main school takes all-comers, the sixth form describes itself thusly:
Michaela is a selective Sixth Form for high-achieving, highly-driven students.
Are you on track to do really well at GCSE, securing an average of at least grade 7 across your best seven subjects?
Irrespective of that particular issue, the idea that we will never again have a PM who is clear minded and confident enough to take the country along in the way Thatcher or Blair did is sad, and I hope overly pessimistic. I would hope that Johnson is the extreme exception rather than the rule.
To correct the record: 49% of voters think Brexit was wrong. 37% think it was right. 14% have no opinion. Excluding those who have no opinion, 57% think it was wrong, and 43% think it was right.
Once again, I was wrong and I am sorry.
It’s also a speech she hasn’t even delivered yet.
In her first speech as the Chairman of the Social Mobility Commission, Katharine Birbalsingh will argue that there is too much focus on those from deprived backgrounds getting into the top universities or elite jobs like surgeons, bankers and CEOs.
Instead, the emphasis should be on people taking small steps up the ladder, from the bottom to the middle rungs, she will argue as she vows to tackle uncomfortable truths head-on.
“We want to move away from the notion that social mobility should just be about the ‘long’ upward mobility from the bottom to the top - the person who is born into a family in social housing and becomes a banker or CEO,” Ms Birbalsingh is expected to say.
“We want to promote a broader view of social mobility, for a wider range of people, who want to improve their lives, sometimes in smaller steps.
“This means looking at how to improve opportunities for those at the bottom - not just by making elite pathways for the few - but by thinking about those who would otherwise be left behind.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/09/working-class-people-should-aim-lower-oxbridge-social-mobility/
There is currently no progression at all through the pay bands in most public sector organisations. There may be a few exceptional cases but in my arms length Osborne blocked all pay band progression about ten years ago and it hasn’t been reversed. There’s not even performance progression.
To give you an idea of what career development is like in most of the public sector right now, the only way to get more pay is to get promoted or move roles. There’s no scope for pay rises within roles, even in shortage occupations like engineering. The pension used to keep it competitive but basic pay is being so badly eroded by inflation that I’m paid (in total) about 15% less than in the private sector.
I love my job, have no kids and given how ruinous to my mental health my last private sector role was I’d be wary of going back into that world without serious personal recommendations, so for me the remuneration isn’t critical. For my colleagues who have families and dependents it is becoming a serious issue. And these aren’t the comedy pen pushers beloved of right-wing caricatures, they’re world-class scientists with very high impact. They lead international scientific committees and one is on the SAGE list in case of an emergency in our field. If the state wants the best and brightest contributing to the public good they need to pay up. It doesn’t need to be silly money, just better than survival money.
And then you come to Stalin’s death mask. Brrr
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
I staggered a bit returning to the car and the left side of my face went numb and I felt a tingle in my left arm. I was cold with shock. I drove straight to A&E at the nearby Royal Guildford hospital.
Straight in. ECG, bloods, CT scan, given fluids etc. I was kept in for four hours. All clear. Fantastic service.
That's what the price of petrol does to you. Shocking. True story.
Personally I find her rather grating as she seems overly keen on self promotion and playing to the gallery, but she is clearly a good educator. The context of her remarks is interesting because up to now the whole Oxbridge thing has been her mantra, so she is clearly repositioning herself in her new job. I wonder whether her analysis is driven by actual data though. For instance, given that long term unemployment is rather uncommon and is usually related to health conditions, I would imagine (but don't have the data myself and may be wrong) that most children of long term unemployed people do in fact get a job.
Frankly this doesn’t sound like something she would have said. I suspect it’s the Telegraph “interpreting” her comments in their headline.
I'm sure "Who?" would be a more common reply.
So the 'Don't know's' have 3 options. They can vote for, against or importantly abstain in a real election.
It is statistically highly improbable that in a split of 37/49/14 that it won't get the 49 vote share to 50 when the 'Don't know's' are reallocated. They don't even have to vote with the 49% as by simply not voting they boost both for and against and boost the 49% by more than the 37% because they will be boosted in the same ratio if they don't cast a vote (this is maths and nothing to do with the decision of the voters).
It would require nearly all the 'Don't know' to actually vote and vote for the 37% on an absolutely massive scale for the 49% to not top 50%.
And of course this is a poll in the first place so has statistical errors built in and these are far greater than this possibility so you would be better arguing that it is a poll and polls can be wrong than the argument you are putting which has a much lower probability.
Therefore one can say with almost certainty that more than 50% think leaving was a mistake (allowing for the statistical limitations of the original poll)
The reason rail seems much more expensive than road in Britain is largely because roads are heavily subsidised (indeed, 100% subsidised in all but a few cases) while railways are not.
There are 3 main sources of cost for transportation: 1. the infrastructure it runs on, 2. the vehicle / rolling stock itself, 3. the fuel used to propel it. Given nobody is suggesting the taxpayer should fully fund 2 or 3, a level playing field would involve either all of the infrastructure managed by network rail being 100% government funded, like the roads; or for drivers to pay to use roads.
EDIT: there's a 4th cost which is the staff driving / running the system of course. On that one it makes sense for rail to be more expensive because when we drive we are in effect providing the labour ourselves for free.
The key number is the progress score, which measures exam results conditioned on the quality of the intake. Her school does well on this at GCSE but there are no data yet for sixth form results.
Congestion isn't an externality in the same way it is a cost of the process. People who are on the road suffer the congestion, anyone who isn't using the road doesn't. Railways have congestion too which is why delays etc happen on railways as when one train has issues, the rails are so congested it creates knock on problems for other trains. Or too many people crowding in means the carriage is congested so you can't get a seat. So should train passengers be taxed for the congestion they're causing?
The @britishchambers warns that UK economic growth is grinding to a standstill as the cost of living crisis escalates.
Via @economics: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-09/uk-economic-growth-is-grinding-to-a-standstill-bcc-warns
In terms of intake it takes kids from all over London and sets lower entry standards for kids on free school meals so that it isn't entirely captured by the middle classes.
I should declare an interest as my daughter will probably be going there in September.
Brexit has to be made to work.I don't know how, but then I didn't create the problem in the first place.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
--> Series of ‘coordinated’ walkouts to cause ‘unparalleled’ chaos on railways, roads and airports in the coming months
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/08/unions-striking-message-prepare-summer-discontent/
Government departments have been ordered to draw up contingency plans to deal with any ensuing crisis, which includes making sure supermarket shelves do not go empty
The true comparison is between, say, Dundee and London. Which has a good number of trains a day, albeit with one easy change in some cases.
Criticism is moving from just the PM to the wider Party.
People said that the fact the Conservatives had voted confidence in Boris made them feel like the Party didn't care about them.
In the words of Kelly, "the fact nothing happened to him, shows how the government is run". 3
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1534829728930078721
While I'm not denigrating their achievements, it would be interesting to see if Birbalsingh, Wilshaw and the others could replicate their success in white working-class schools in, dare I say it, Red Wall type places. I think it would be harder. It's rare to hear about super-heads or super-schools in Stoke, Grimsby or Hull, for example; though I'm sure they exist, they don't get (or seek?) the same publicity as the London elite.
The other three were on the fence. But the bar was high for what they said they would need to see. 5
Asked about it, voters described it as a "joke", a "drop in the ocean" and a "bluff" that was not going to make a difference to their pockets in the face of rising bills and taxes. 6
None of the voters we spoke to are switching to Labour. The main reason? Keir Starmer. They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake". 7
Even if the 'Don't knows' split spectacularly unevenly (for the reasons given in my other post) they probably can't reach 50% plus whereas it is almost an absolute certainty the 49% will. As stated there is a much greater probability that the poll is wrong. Only a small number of 'Don't know's' abstaining will tip the 49% over the 50%.
Presumably Quebec had a much different split to 37/49/14 where this is possible. Also remember a poll is not and election so again the poll can be wrong. Nobody is denying 'Don't knows' can have an impact, but it is practically impossible when the split is 37/49/14.
A better example would be Munich to Berlin which has trains every 2 hours.
None of this group said they were voting Conservative. But none were voting Labour either. Most said they would likely not vote, or vote for a smaller party. Some said they had not been aware it was taking place. 9
Unless the evidence of damage and pressure from the damaged grows to the point where something has to be done, it may well take a new government before we make the move - but make it we will, sooner or later.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10897967/Woman-claims-got-STD-ex-awarded-5-2-million-insurance-company.html
Are US courts in some giant merry go round of warding huge payouts to keep themselves in business ?
Maybe its time for the PB party? Some excellent polices get floated on here, and there is a huge breadth of knowledge and experience.
I've had a sudden flashback to when both Huhne and Clegg answered questions either directly here on PB, or the Guardian, for their respective leadership campaigns - I can't remember which. Huhne was about 12 times as bright as Clegg, I remember.
Are there any other sixth-form colleges like that, with input from a similar school ?
a) The the remain and leave polling was close unlike the poll you were referring to. They are completely incomparable. Of course the 'Don't knows' can make a difference then. Read the posts. It is mathematically highly improbable they could have in the example you gave, but highly likely when they are close. You just don't understand maths.
b) There is a margin of error in a poll. There isn't in a vote. Polls and votes are different.
However, it is utterly pointless as Brexit has happened, and there is no mechanism you can switch like magic to us being in the EU as we were
Of course there is a debate to be had on the way forward, but the extreme views on both sides are not the answer, but sensible attitudes to improve the present arrangements are
Indeed, even if the majority wanted to re-join, which they do not at present, then the terms and conditions for re-joining and the actual state of the EU at that time bearing in mind the way so many Baltic states see Germany and France as appeasers for Putin, makes it very unlikely to happen in the near future as we develop trading agreements across the world
Everything changes and accepting change is the only way to a successful future
Sure, that's what Eurozealots like you want. But there's a reason the Remain campaign didn't tell the truth about it.
Suppose they had one and won? Would they truly be open to rejoining the UK in a referendum in 2030?
My grandfather, in his latter years, used to lament that he 'didn't know why he'd had to go down the mines; his grandfather had been a doctor!'
And one day I discovered it was true; the doctor had left Wales, prospered, married money, and left his old life, including an illegitimate son, behind.
More than many things this capitulation to the Eurosceptic framing that the EU was something that was done to us, that we struggled against, rather than something we participated in, made the case for Leave.
I don't envisage a future British politician with stacks of political capital deciding to spend it on fundamentally changing our relationship with the EU. They'll make the same calculation as Blair, that more immediate domestic issues are a higher priority.