Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Labour STILL not odds-on for an overall majority – politicalbetting.com

123468

Comments

  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,563
    Leon said:

    Driver said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I mean. Just look at the fucking state of that


    Interesting that the rest of the table shows that UK-born people are more negative in contributions than the migrants.

    Of course, we can assume Migration Watch UK might well have skewed the figures (or, at least, taken the least positive interpretation), but the others do show, consistently that:

    1 - EEA immigrants are the most positive (as you said)
    2 - UK-born (ie non-immigrants) are consistently negative.
    3 - The most recent migrants (ie since 2001, the era of mass immigration) are the most positive.



    I'm sure everyone can pull out what they'd prefer to focus on, but the overall picture does seem to point to those three rules.

    And that without the more recent immigrants (since 2001), especially those from the EEA, we'd be considerably poorer.
    And you’re putting your own positive spin on it!

    Tbf the data is monumentally opaque. Presumably because this is so hard to work out. This table is about as good as it gets and it begs a million questions

    My point in citing it was to counter the glibness of @Gardenwalker - “migrants are net givers”. It’s much more complicated than that

    But common sense tells me Max is right. GDP per cap stopped growing in tandem with GDP when immigration went mad under Blair. That feels at least partly causal, to me

    It's not just common sense, immigrants make up a much higher proportion of low salary and low skill jobs than British people. They also do at the very top, which is why immigration isn't a black and white discussion. We need policies that encourage high skilled, high wage migrants and block low wage and low salary ones to force companies to invest in automation rather than throw cheap labour at it.
    One intriguing example is the Albanian hand car wash, replacing a machine. Five people do the job of one robot. Massively unproductive. Regressive

    And yet the wash is palpably better…
    Eventually it always comes back to the Albanian car wash.

    You can’t argue with the Albanian car wash!

    Soon someone will mention ten to a room slums in Barking, and how house prices would be lower without all the migrants.

    Part of the British malaise, it seems to me, is this willingness to continue to spout what are presumably comforting “truthy” nostra.
    But the Albanian car wash is a true, obvious, real-life example that we have all encountered. That’s it’s value as evidence (I know you don’t like to offer evidence, but some of us are old fashioned)

    It is also interestingly nuanced. These car washes incrementally improve life for many by providing an excellent cheap wash. Yet they are regressive. Complex
    A cheap wash? They cost £20+ round my way.
    £20?!

    £10 in Gospel Oak, and it’s way better than the premium £12 jobbie from my nearest machine

    They are also unfailingly polite and I’ve got to know the Albanian boss. We chat. He’s insightful on a number of topics
    I usually get the third level one, inside hoovering and all the rest of it but no wax. A basic wash is single figures, true.

    It was cheaper than that when I lived in London. Sufficiently cheap that there was no way they were paying minimum wage.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Hearing it is now likely UK will demand that all people coming from China have a negative covid test result

    There's been discussions between ministers and officials all day - sounds like UK will now follow US and other nations

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1608871250075549697

    Ahem. As I predicted
    So? The debate was not about what the government would do, it’s about the need for it. Lots of high profile scientists I’ve heard over the last couple of days say it’s not needed - for instance Callum Semple.
    What you are seeing is herd behaviour from governments.
    On the other hand, the cost and inconvenience of lateral flow tests prior to boarding ought not to be massive.
    And the massive wave of cases in China probably won’t last all that long.

    But by the time everyone’s argued about what would be the most effective system, let alone put it into practice, the debate might be irrelevant anyway.
    China’s wave will apparently peak in late Jan. So yes, over soon

    “Spain becomes second European country to introduce Covid checks on passengers from China - ITV News #Covid #China”

    https://twitter.com/kimmie_roosa/status/1608882137393991680?s=46&t=ZmHKr3tb94Lb_2cmj3EA3A
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,782
    Driver said:

    Leon said:

    Driver said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I mean. Just look at the fucking state of that


    Interesting that the rest of the table shows that UK-born people are more negative in contributions than the migrants.

    Of course, we can assume Migration Watch UK might well have skewed the figures (or, at least, taken the least positive interpretation), but the others do show, consistently that:

    1 - EEA immigrants are the most positive (as you said)
    2 - UK-born (ie non-immigrants) are consistently negative.
    3 - The most recent migrants (ie since 2001, the era of mass immigration) are the most positive.



    I'm sure everyone can pull out what they'd prefer to focus on, but the overall picture does seem to point to those three rules.

    And that without the more recent immigrants (since 2001), especially those from the EEA, we'd be considerably poorer.
    And you’re putting your own positive spin on it!

    Tbf the data is monumentally opaque. Presumably because this is so hard to work out. This table is about as good as it gets and it begs a million questions

    My point in citing it was to counter the glibness of @Gardenwalker - “migrants are net givers”. It’s much more complicated than that

    But common sense tells me Max is right. GDP per cap stopped growing in tandem with GDP when immigration went mad under Blair. That feels at least partly causal, to me

    It's not just common sense, immigrants make up a much higher proportion of low salary and low skill jobs than British people. They also do at the very top, which is why immigration isn't a black and white discussion. We need policies that encourage high skilled, high wage migrants and block low wage and low salary ones to force companies to invest in automation rather than throw cheap labour at it.
    One intriguing example is the Albanian hand car wash, replacing a machine. Five people do the job of one robot. Massively unproductive. Regressive

    And yet the wash is palpably better…
    Eventually it always comes back to the Albanian car wash.

    You can’t argue with the Albanian car wash!

    Soon someone will mention ten to a room slums in Barking, and how house prices would be lower without all the migrants.

    Part of the British malaise, it seems to me, is this willingness to continue to spout what are presumably comforting “truthy” nostra.
    But the Albanian car wash is a true, obvious, real-life example that we have all encountered. That’s it’s value as evidence (I know you don’t like to offer evidence, but some of us are old fashioned)

    It is also interestingly nuanced. These car washes incrementally improve life for many by providing an excellent cheap wash. Yet they are regressive. Complex
    A cheap wash? They cost £20+ round my way.
    £20?!

    £10 in Gospel Oak, and it’s way better than the premium £12 jobbie from my nearest machine

    They are also unfailingly polite and I’ve got to know the Albanian boss. We chat. He’s insightful on a number of topics
    I usually get the third level one, inside hoovering and all the rest of it but no wax. A basic wash is single figures, true.

    It was cheaper than that when I lived in London. Sufficiently cheap that there was no way they were paying minimum wage.
    Yes, they are almost certainly illegal immigrants working for cash.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,959
    edited December 2022

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I mean. Just look at the fucking state of that


    Interesting that the rest of the table shows that UK-born people are more negative in contributions than the migrants.

    Of course, we can assume Migration Watch UK might well have skewed the figures (or, at least, taken the least positive interpretation), but the others do show, consistently that:

    1 - EEA immigrants are the most positive (as you said)
    2 - UK-born (ie non-immigrants) are consistently negative.
    3 - The most recent migrants (ie since 2001, the era of mass immigration) are the most positive.



    I'm sure everyone can pull out what they'd prefer to focus on, but the overall picture does seem to point to those three rules.

    And that without the more recent immigrants (since 2001), especially those from the EEA, we'd be considerably poorer.
    And you’re putting your own positive spin on it!

    Tbf the data is monumentally opaque. Presumably because this is so hard to work out. This table is about as good as it gets and it begs a million questions

    My point in citing it was to counter the glibness of @Gardenwalker - “migrants are net givers”. It’s much more complicated than that

    But common sense tells me Max is right. GDP per cap stopped growing in tandem with GDP when immigration went mad under Blair. That feels at least partly causal, to me

    It's not just common sense, immigrants make up a much higher proportion of low salary and low skill jobs than British people. They also do at the very top, which is why immigration isn't a black and white discussion. We need policies that encourage high skilled, high wage migrants and block low wage and low salary ones to force companies to invest in automation rather than throw cheap labour at it.
    Fine as far as it goes, and I'm not qualified to say how far that is.

    But there are an awful lot of jobs where their worth isn't and can't be captured in their salary. Care workers, teaching assistants. And they can't really be automated... Not yet, anyway.
    Who is doing those jobs in the glorious future?

    And if a business can't or won't automate, what's to stop it moving somewhere where it can get cheap staff? That happens a lot already.
    They are also jobs where productivity is devilishly difficult to discern.
    The only real measure we can use is that the demand for folk to do them is far in excess of the willingness of folk to do them at the going rate of pay on offer.
    To which the government answer appears to be for those currently employed to get a better job.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    I’ve been in bed all day. And I’m not ill

    AND I DON’T CARE
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,563
    MaxPB said:

    Driver said:

    Leon said:

    Driver said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I mean. Just look at the fucking state of that


    Interesting that the rest of the table shows that UK-born people are more negative in contributions than the migrants.

    Of course, we can assume Migration Watch UK might well have skewed the figures (or, at least, taken the least positive interpretation), but the others do show, consistently that:

    1 - EEA immigrants are the most positive (as you said)
    2 - UK-born (ie non-immigrants) are consistently negative.
    3 - The most recent migrants (ie since 2001, the era of mass immigration) are the most positive.



    I'm sure everyone can pull out what they'd prefer to focus on, but the overall picture does seem to point to those three rules.

    And that without the more recent immigrants (since 2001), especially those from the EEA, we'd be considerably poorer.
    And you’re putting your own positive spin on it!

    Tbf the data is monumentally opaque. Presumably because this is so hard to work out. This table is about as good as it gets and it begs a million questions

    My point in citing it was to counter the glibness of @Gardenwalker - “migrants are net givers”. It’s much more complicated than that

    But common sense tells me Max is right. GDP per cap stopped growing in tandem with GDP when immigration went mad under Blair. That feels at least partly causal, to me

    It's not just common sense, immigrants make up a much higher proportion of low salary and low skill jobs than British people. They also do at the very top, which is why immigration isn't a black and white discussion. We need policies that encourage high skilled, high wage migrants and block low wage and low salary ones to force companies to invest in automation rather than throw cheap labour at it.
    One intriguing example is the Albanian hand car wash, replacing a machine. Five people do the job of one robot. Massively unproductive. Regressive

    And yet the wash is palpably better…
    Eventually it always comes back to the Albanian car wash.

    You can’t argue with the Albanian car wash!

    Soon someone will mention ten to a room slums in Barking, and how house prices would be lower without all the migrants.

    Part of the British malaise, it seems to me, is this willingness to continue to spout what are presumably comforting “truthy” nostra.
    But the Albanian car wash is a true, obvious, real-life example that we have all encountered. That’s it’s value as evidence (I know you don’t like to offer evidence, but some of us are old fashioned)

    It is also interestingly nuanced. These car washes incrementally improve life for many by providing an excellent cheap wash. Yet they are regressive. Complex
    A cheap wash? They cost £20+ round my way.
    £20?!

    £10 in Gospel Oak, and it’s way better than the premium £12 jobbie from my nearest machine

    They are also unfailingly polite and I’ve got to know the Albanian boss. We chat. He’s insightful on a number of topics
    I usually get the third level one, inside hoovering and all the rest of it but no wax. A basic wash is single figures, true.

    It was cheaper than that when I lived in London. Sufficiently cheap that there was no way they were paying minimum wage.
    Yes, they are almost certainly illegal immigrants working for cash.
    You have to think so.

    Mine usually takes 30-45 minutes, with at least three people working on it. How could it cost much less?
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    But if you look at countries which have developed entirely new industrial sectors, that argument really doesn’t stand up.
    It’s an argument for stagnation.
    You misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't develop new sectors, quite the opposite. But they need to be ones where we can get a competitive advantage.

    Of course civil servants and politicians are notoriously bad at identifying such sectors (I'm old enough to remember the Wilson government's risible and expensive attempts to do so, and all the many attempts since, except perhaps under Heseltine in the Thatcher governments, have been no better). Luckily in this country we still have a good (by European standards) venture capital industry. Dominic Cummings, crackers though he is, was on to something here, as we saw with the Kate Bingham vaccine procurement taskforce. But look at the flak she got at the time.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,444
    Leon said:

    I’ve been in bed all day. And I’m not ill

    AND I DON’T CARE

    On your own? (PB does not count as company, even if it fulfills that role for some).
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175

    Leon said:

    I’ve been in bed all day. And I’m not ill

    AND I DON’T CARE

    On your own? (PB does not count as company, even if it fulfills that role for some).
    Alone. It’s like I’m hibernating. I have become a polar bear. I’m justifying it by the fact Xmas was insanely social
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?
  • Options
    Is it possible to procure an Albanian car wash in Alabama? Or visa versa?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,495
    edited December 2022
    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,268

    Nigelb said:

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    But if you look at countries which have developed entirely new industrial sectors, that argument really doesn’t stand up.
    It’s an argument for stagnation.
    You misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't develop new sectors, quite the opposite. But they need to be ones where we can get a competitive advantage.

    Of course civil servants and politicians are notoriously bad at identifying such sectors (I'm old enough to remember the Wilson government's risible and expensive attempts to do so, and all the many attempts since, except perhaps under Heseltine in the Thatcher governments, have been no better). Luckily in this country we still have a good (by European standards) venture capital industry. Dominic Cummings, crackers though he is, was on to something here, as we saw with the Kate Bingham vaccine procurement taskforce. But look at the flak she got at the time.
    The problem with old scale industrial policy is that it was obsessed with national champions, often reducing competition to make them, and just threw subsidies at the things.

    Good industrial policy compares our sectors with those in other countries and works out what the specific barriers to growth are. Then assesses whether removing those barriers are in the national interest.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    “Israel to require COVID tests for foreign arrivals from China: ministry ift.tt/xazcMIS”

    https://twitter.com/healthsmartme/status/1608877032997265408?s=46&t=ZmHKr3tb94Lb_2cmj3EA3A

    So far, that’s

    Japan
    South Korea
    North Korea (seriously)
    India
    Phillipines
    Malaysia
    Italy
    Spain
    UK
    USA
    Israel

  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,444
    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,959
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve been in bed all day. And I’m not ill

    AND I DON’T CARE

    On your own? (PB does not count as company, even if it fulfills that role for some).
    Alone. It’s like I’m hibernating. I have become a polar bear. I’m justifying it by the fact Xmas was insanely social
    Empathise. Today is the first day I haven't visited or had visitors. I woke at 10:15 after 11 hours straight kip.
    Pottered, lunch, back to bed for another hour and a half sleep.
    Feel vaguely human now.
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,583
    HYUFD said:

    It always seems strange to me that the 'captains of industry', along with directors and highly-paid senior managers, who do very well out of running businesses, never get any flak on here for their failure to improve productivity in recent times.

    I guess migrants (and trades unionists, come to that) are an easier and more visible target.

    Maybe they're just not very productive. I'm sure it would be considerably cheaper to outsource them to India, plenty of MBAs there.
    40% of FTSE 100 CEOs now are foreign anyway

    https://heidrick.mediaroom.com/2017-04-20-FTSE-100-CEOs-Younger-and-More-International-than-CEOs-in-the-U-S-France-and-Germany#:~:text=Four out of 10 (40,and 17 percent in Germany.
    Fire and rehire!

    Make 'em justify that their positions can't be done by a Indian postgraduate with passable English and a hotline to a Chinese middleman.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,268
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39s in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak's and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    It's all about the cost of owning a home and having a family. It is too expensive to do this for most millenials, so they don't do it. Singles, or even DINKs, renting small apartments are, for the most part, going to feel frustrated with their prospects and vote left wing.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175

    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
    The science is disputed tho. Some boffins think this is justifiable

    Moreover, politics demands we do this. Fuck the CCP. Remember how they seeded Original Covid around the world? Just like this. Grr
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,204
    edited December 2022
    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    The variant will get here anyway. If nothing else the African countries dependent on China’s largesse will not reciprocate.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412
    MaxPB said:

    I’m at work, and my phone just died. I’m on another phone.
    But as far as I know, the following things are relatively uncontroversial:

    Immigration doesn’t suppress native wages.
    Immigration improves productivity growth via increased aggregate demand and better skill sorting.
    EU migration tended to higher skills than the level of the native population.
    EU migrants were on average fiscal net contributors.

    I don’t deny you can cut the data down and find specific groups or places or whatever.

    But it is worth recalling too that almost wealthy countries have experienced high migration in recent years, yet Britain’s stagnation is exceptional. Also, several economies - like Switzerland - have built economic models on even higher migration.

    Portes, who I personally find annoying, and is undoubtedly a “liberal”, albeit weirdly Brexity, seems pretty balanced and comprehensive here:

    https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/new-evidence-economics-immigration-uk

    That's all completely evidence free assertion though. What are the actual numbers to back that up? In actual dollars what is the per migrant net contribution to the economy and tax?
    The Swiss protect chunks of their labour market by using the language requirements and requirements for locally obtained qualifications.

    Standing outside a small British building site for an hour or 2 vs a French one is educational. The French one is mechanised - small crane is the first thing that goes up on a small domestic project. Here, it’s “lump of steel / 50kg = blokes to carry it”
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,353
    Something has gone wrong with the delivery of my new bank card. As of Sunday the old one will be out of date. Given the postal strikes I was advised it might take up to two weeks for the new one to arrive. Thank god you can still use cash as that's what I'll have to be doing.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
    Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
    And things like real value added vs remuneration extracted. The upshot is most low paid people are net contributors and many highly paid people are net takers. Counterintuitive yet true.
    Would you elaborate?

    @kinabalu
    Yes. Imagine 2 Me's.

    Me1 is an astute spotter of underpriced assets. I buy and sell them - not changing them in any way - and make £50m in a year, paying £10m tax, netting £40m.

    Me2 is a low wage toiler in a factory earning £25k, paying £3k tax, netting £22k.

    Me2 (low skill, low pay) is a Net Contributor, Me1 (high skill, high pay) is a Net Taker.
    Haven't you just generalised bond, currency, share etc trading?
    Interesting to meet someone who doesn’t believe that finding the best market for an item doesn’t add value. That’s an old old belief.
  • Options

    Something has gone wrong with the delivery of my new bank card. As of Sunday the old one will be out of date. Given the postal strikes I was advised it might take up to two weeks for the new one to arrive. Thank god you can still use cash as that's what I'll have to be doing.

    This is why everybody needs a second bank account with another banking group.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,316
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
    The science is disputed tho. Some boffins think this is justifiable

    Moreover, politics demands we do this. Fuck the CCP. Remember how they seeded Original Covid around the world? Just like this. Grr
    You’re being incredibly short sighted about this. These measures only serve to further legitimise the use of NPIs that have no recognisable impact on health outcomes at all but harm the economy and undermine freedoms. First they come for Chinese air passengers. Next they come for Camden dwelling socialites.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736
    Driver said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I mean. Just look at the fucking state of that


    Interesting that the rest of the table shows that UK-born people are more negative in contributions than the migrants.

    Of course, we can assume Migration Watch UK might well have skewed the figures (or, at least, taken the least positive interpretation), but the others do show, consistently that:

    1 - EEA immigrants are the most positive (as you said)
    2 - UK-born (ie non-immigrants) are consistently negative.
    3 - The most recent migrants (ie since 2001, the era of mass immigration) are the most positive.



    I'm sure everyone can pull out what they'd prefer to focus on, but the overall picture does seem to point to those three rules.

    And that without the more recent immigrants (since 2001), especially those from the EEA, we'd be considerably poorer.
    And you’re putting your own positive spin on it!

    Tbf the data is monumentally opaque. Presumably because this is so hard to work out. This table is about as good as it gets and it begs a million questions

    My point in citing it was to counter the glibness of @Gardenwalker - “migrants are net givers”. It’s much more complicated than that

    But common sense tells me Max is right. GDP per cap stopped growing in tandem with GDP when immigration went mad under Blair. That feels at least partly causal, to me

    It's not just common sense, immigrants make up a much higher proportion of low salary and low skill jobs than British people. They also do at the very top, which is why immigration isn't a black and white discussion. We need policies that encourage high skilled, high wage migrants and block low wage and low salary ones to force companies to invest in automation rather than throw cheap labour at it.
    One intriguing example is the Albanian hand car wash, replacing a machine. Five people do the job of one robot. Massively unproductive. Regressive

    And yet the wash is palpably better…
    Eventually it always comes back to the Albanian car wash.

    You can’t argue with the Albanian car wash!

    Soon someone will mention ten to a room slums in Barking, and how house prices would be lower without all the migrants.

    Part of the British malaise, it seems to me, is this willingness to continue to spout what are presumably comforting “truthy” nostra.
    But the Albanian car wash is a true, obvious, real-life example that we have all encountered. That’s it’s value as evidence (I know you don’t like to offer evidence, but some of us are old fashioned)

    It is also interestingly nuanced. These car washes incrementally improve life for many by providing an excellent cheap wash. Yet they are regressive. Complex
    A cheap wash? They cost £20+ round my way.
    Yep, and always busy, while there is no queue at the remaining automated ones. Hand washes are simply much better. It is market forces.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Hearing it is now likely UK will demand that all people coming from China have a negative covid test result

    There's been discussions between ministers and officials all day - sounds like UK will now follow US and other nations

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1608871250075549697

    Ahem. As I predicted
    So? The debate was not about what the government would do, it’s about the need for it. Lots of high profile scientists I’ve heard over the last couple of days say it’s not needed - for instance Callum Semple.
    What you are seeing is herd behaviour from governments.
    I’m merely pointing out that I said this would happen. “The dominos will fall”. Some on here were skeptical

    I agree the science is contentious - however my opinion is this is justified by basic politics alone: western governments need to get tough on Beijing. They freely and wilfully exported their fucking bug around the world in early 2020. Not again

    And we should sequence the shit out of them. Watch for variants
    Happily we are getting plenty of sequence info from China. Assuming those involved are honest, the variants causing the outbreak in China are closely similar to those everywhere else. As expected, they are havin* the exit wave to end all exit waves, just like we did to some extent in 2020. Except we had vaccinated over 90% of people ( and certainly of the most vulnerable) using decent vaccines by then, and our exit wasn’t that bad. Theirs is awful.
    The US is considering sampling and sequencing the aircraft wastewater, which would confirm all the sequence info they need, at fairly low cost.
  • Options
    I have to physically leave the house and go "somewhere" at least once or twice a day, or I go mad.

    Why I struggled with lockdown.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    edited December 2022
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
    The science is disputed tho. Some boffins think this is justifiable

    Moreover, politics demands we do this. Fuck the CCP. Remember how they seeded Original Covid around the world? Just like this. Grr
    You’re being incredibly short sighted about this. These measures only serve to further legitimise the use of NPIs that have no recognisable impact on health outcomes at all but harm the economy and undermine freedoms. First they come for Chinese air passengers. Next they come for Camden dwelling socialites.
    The politics here overrides the relatively minor cost of stopping a few coughing Chinese tourists

    The CCP is treating the world with virological
    contempt. Again. Enough

    Yes, this is very much aimed at China. Deliberately
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,316
    Driverless cars:

    Very odd belief that they have no value unless they can reverse out of JJ’s sister’s driveway or don’t need backup remote humans in a warehouse. And demonstrably false, when you consider the gross margin Tesla earns from its currently functionally limited product.

    As for timings, humans have a tendency to overestimate the rate of change in the next 10 years but radically underestimate it in the next 50. It’s not going to take 50 years to crack this, I still think this is something that is going to creep up on people and suddenly surprise them. 2023 does seem a stretch for a profitable and regulatory approved product but it’s plausible that Tesla or maybe even someone like Cruise might crack it by end 2025.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.


    Er, ok. Projection much?

    It’s taken longer than expected, there are still multiple problems to be overcome, but driverless vehicles are now a fact and they are being deployed, commercially

    “Driverless Taxi Downtown Las Vegas. Do you wanna ride? #LasVegas #Halo #SelfDrivingCars”

    https://twitter.com/kassidylane1/status/1607504137855594496?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw

    “Waymo’s driverless robotaxis are now doing airport trips in Phoenix / The Alphabet company is getting more confident in its autonomous capabilities, deploying fully driverless cars to Phoenix’s airport to handle the trickiest types of pickups.”

    I reckon this would have accrued much wider attention in normal times - driverless cars! - but unfortunately we don’t lack for major, distracting news
    There is a *vast* amount of difference between these drastically geolocated schemes and true autonomous driving. But as I said, ten years have pretty much passed since your 'prediction', and the UK is short of tens of thousands of HGV drivers.

    Smoke and mirrors mate, smoke and mirrors.

    (BTW, I'm not the person hitting the off-topic button on your posts)
    Yes, aren't they just glorified trams?
    No

    “On my ride home I saw more driverless cars than regular ones”

    https://twitter.com/pizzadj/status/1608358035373838340?s=46&t=1q6_SWByrY2mb1WSMPxdeA

    “The number of lives driverless cars will save is mindblowing. This is awesome.”

    https://twitter.com/kazanjy/status/1605430636218458112?s=46&t=1q6_SWByrY2mb1WSMPxdeA

    “Driverless cars or autonomous vehicles will be in use everywhere within the next six years. (World Economic Forum) #AV #AutoIndustry”

    https://twitter.com/jamesvgingerich/status/1607983056505212928?s=46&t=1q6_SWByrY2mb1WSMPxdeA
    May I just suggest you look at the picture of the car at 3 seconds into the second video, look at the hardware on its roof, and think of how much all of that costs. Then work out why it is not currently a goer...
    “Currently”.
    The cost argument against potentially disruptive technologies is pretty well always fallacious. Once in use, however niche, they just get cheaper.
    Indeed, within limits. Even lidar costs are slowly reducing. But they have not got the tech working well enough yet, and Musk/Tesla's gamble that only a limited number/type of sensors are required might prove fallacious for both him and others. And there is always a minimum cost for this cost, and it is well above zero.
    As is the cost of employing drivers.
    I don’t know how long it will take, but the technology will be there eventually. It’s already in use in limited cases.

    And there’s quite a lot of interesting kit in the space between lidar and Musk’s cameras only ideology. Computing costs, of course, will tend towards zero.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,316
    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
    The science is disputed tho. Some boffins think this is justifiable

    Moreover, politics demands we do this. Fuck the CCP. Remember how they seeded Original Covid around the world? Just like this. Grr
    You’re being incredibly short sighted about this. These measures only serve to further legitimise the use of NPIs that have no recognisable impact on health outcomes at all but harm the economy and undermine freedoms. First they come for Chinese air passengers. Next they come for Camden dwelling socialites.
    The politics here overrides the relatively minor cost of stopping a few coughing Chinese tourists

    The CCP is treating the world with virological
    contempt. Again. Enough

    Yes, this is very much aimed at China. Deliberately
    No. It reaffirms the precedent that it’s appropriate for western governments to restrict basic freedoms for no purpose whatsoever.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Hearing it is now likely UK will demand that all people coming from China have a negative covid test result

    There's been discussions between ministers and officials all day - sounds like UK will now follow US and other nations

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1608871250075549697

    Ahem. As I predicted
    So? The debate was not about what the government would do, it’s about the need for it. Lots of high profile scientists I’ve heard over the last couple of days say it’s not needed - for instance Callum Semple.
    What you are seeing is herd behaviour from governments.
    I’m merely pointing out that I said this would happen. “The dominos will fall”. Some on here were skeptical

    I agree the science is contentious - however my opinion is this is justified by basic politics alone: western governments need to get tough on Beijing. They freely and wilfully exported their fucking bug around the world in early 2020. Not again

    And we should sequence the shit out of them. Watch for variants
    Happily we are getting plenty of sequence info from China. Assuming those involved are honest, the variants causing the outbreak in China are closely similar to those everywhere else. As expected, they are havin* the exit wave to end all exit waves, just like we did to some extent in 2020. Except we had vaccinated over 90% of people ( and certainly of the most vulnerable) using decent vaccines by then, and our exit wasn’t that bad. Theirs is awful.
    The US is considering sampling and sequencing the aircraft wastewater, which would confirm all the sequence info they need, at fairly low cost.
    Are we really getting “plenty of sequence info” from China as @turbotubbs suggests?


    “On Friday, China was accused of withholding Covid data after it emerged that it had shared fewer than 1,000 Covid virus samples with the international scientific community over the past month.”

    - Telegraph
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    “France Plans Random Pcr Tests on Arrivals From China From Jan.1

    France to Require Negative COVID Test for Passengers From China

    France Advises People to Delay Non-essential Travel to China“
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    .

    Nigelb said:

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    But if you look at countries which have developed entirely new industrial sectors, that argument really doesn’t stand up.
    It’s an argument for stagnation.
    South Korea presumably should have stuck to their undeniable strength in rice production.

    That too was something they developed.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_South_Korea

    And they don’t really have a competitive advantage growing rice.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,204
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    The Tories lost the Millennial vote when they jettisoned Truss.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    edited December 2022
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
    The science is disputed tho. Some boffins think this is justifiable

    Moreover, politics demands we do this. Fuck the CCP. Remember how they seeded Original Covid around the world? Just like this. Grr
    You’re being incredibly short sighted about this. These measures only serve to further legitimise the use of NPIs that have no recognisable impact on health outcomes at all but harm the economy and undermine freedoms. First they come for Chinese air passengers. Next they come for Camden dwelling socialites.
    The politics here overrides the relatively minor cost of stopping a few coughing Chinese tourists

    The CCP is treating the world with virological
    contempt. Again. Enough

    Yes, this is very much aimed at China. Deliberately
    No. It reaffirms the precedent that it’s appropriate for western governments to restrict basic freedoms for no purpose whatsoever.
    Agreed. UK is succumbing to whatever the international version of peer pressure is.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
    The science is disputed tho. Some boffins think this is justifiable

    Moreover, politics demands we do this. Fuck the CCP. Remember how they seeded Original Covid around the world? Just like this. Grr
    You’re being incredibly short sighted about this. These measures only serve to further legitimise the use of NPIs that have no recognisable impact on health outcomes at all but harm the economy and undermine freedoms. First they come for Chinese air passengers. Next they come for Camden dwelling socialites.
    The politics here overrides the relatively minor cost of stopping a few coughing Chinese tourists

    The CCP is treating the world with virological
    contempt. Again. Enough

    Yes, this is very much aimed at China. Deliberately
    No. It reaffirms the precedent that it’s appropriate for western governments to restrict basic freedoms for no purpose whatsoever.
    Agreed. UK is succumbing to whatever the international version of peer pressure is.
    Or, worldwide governments are reacting with justified wariness to the country that 1. Gave us this virus 2. Deliberately spread it around the world 3. Is now experiencing a huge exit wave of infection and 4. Is being weirdly shady about its sequencing, almost as if they have another variant and they know it
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868

    Nigelb said:

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    But if you look at countries which have developed entirely new industrial sectors, that argument really doesn’t stand up.
    It’s an argument for stagnation.
    You misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't develop new sectors, quite the opposite. But they need to be ones where we can get a competitive advantage.

    Of course civil servants and politicians are notoriously bad at identifying such sectors (I'm old enough to remember the Wilson government's risible and expensive attempts to do so, and all the many attempts since, except perhaps under Heseltine in the Thatcher governments, have been no better). Luckily in this country we still have a good (by European standards) venture capital industry. Dominic Cummings, crackers though he is, was on to something here, as we saw with the Kate Bingham vaccine procurement taskforce. But look at the flak she got at the time.
    I understand the point - but who would have said that an earthquake prone island with no real technology industry would have such an advantage in chip production ?
    The example of places like Taiwan teach a rather different lesson about what it means.

    Similarly battery manufacturing. Korea has none of the necessary domestic raw materials, and one if its biggest players is a spin out of an oil refining conglomerate.

    What should government do is a harder question, which we’ve been pretty bad at answering. Spending a decade distracted with Brexit almost certainly isn’t the answer.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,601
    edited December 2022

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I mean. Just look at the fucking state of that


    Interesting that the rest of the table shows that UK-born people are more negative in contributions than the migrants.

    Of course, we can assume Migration Watch UK might well have skewed the figures (or, at least, taken the least positive interpretation), but the others do show, consistently that:

    1 - EEA immigrants are the most positive (as you said)
    2 - UK-born (ie non-immigrants) are consistently negative.
    3 - The most recent migrants (ie since 2001, the era of mass immigration) are the most positive.



    I'm sure everyone can pull out what they'd prefer to focus on, but the overall picture does seem to point to those three rules.

    And that without the more recent immigrants (since 2001), especially those from the EEA, we'd be considerably poorer.
    And you’re putting your own positive spin on it!

    Tbf the data is monumentally opaque. Presumably because this is so hard to work out. This table is about as good as it gets and it begs a million questions

    My point in citing it was to counter the glibness of @Gardenwalker - “migrants are net givers”. It’s much more complicated than that

    But common sense tells me Max is right. GDP per cap stopped growing in tandem with GDP when immigration went mad under Blair. That feels at least partly causal, to me

    It's not just common sense, immigrants make up a much higher proportion of low salary and low skill jobs than British people. They also do at the very top, which is why immigration isn't a black and white discussion. We need policies that encourage high skilled, high wage migrants and block low wage and low salary ones to force companies to invest in automation rather than throw cheap labour at it.
    Fine as far as it goes, and I'm not qualified to say how far that is.

    But there are an awful lot of jobs where their worth isn't and can't be captured in their salary. Care workers, teaching assistants. And they can't really be automated... Not yet, anyway.
    Who is doing those jobs in the glorious future?

    And if a business can't or won't automate, what's to stop it moving somewhere where it can get cheap staff? That happens a lot already.
    If you based pay on public opinion, care workers would be paid a hundred times more than investment bankers, but if you measure capacity to do a job, the same wage draws forth more able and willing care workers than investment bankers. So this dimension of "worth" is more about public morality than the reality of how much well-being is being created.

    Historically this disconnect was even more common. Famously Napoleon was blamed for calling England a nation of shopkeepers, as if this was a bad thing. People in Christian countries generally believed that making physical things and caring for people is good and authentic and in many cases manly, and business and finance are bad and inauthentic and nerdy or effeminate. No coincidence, the first group of traits are widely coded as Christian while the second is widely coded as Jewish, and this formed the core of fascist critiques of capitalism.

    The economy has changed a lot in the last 200 years, but to an extent this thinking continues in notions endorsed by our leaders like turning Britain into a nation of "makers", or posing in hard hats on factory floors.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Hearing it is now likely UK will demand that all people coming from China have a negative covid test result

    There's been discussions between ministers and officials all day - sounds like UK will now follow US and other nations

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1608871250075549697

    Ahem. As I predicted
    So? The debate was not about what the government would do, it’s about the need for it. Lots of high profile scientists I’ve heard over the last couple of days say it’s not needed - for instance Callum Semple.
    What you are seeing is herd behaviour from governments.
    I’m merely pointing out that I said this would happen. “The dominos will fall”. Some on here were skeptical

    I agree the science is contentious - however my opinion is this is justified by basic politics alone: western governments need to get tough on Beijing. They freely and wilfully exported their fucking bug around the world in early 2020. Not again

    And we should sequence the shit out of them. Watch for variants
    Happily we are getting plenty of sequence info from China. Assuming those involved are honest, the variants causing the outbreak in China are closely similar to those everywhere else. As expected, they are havin* the exit wave to end all exit waves, just like we did to some extent in 2020. Except we had vaccinated over 90% of people ( and certainly of the most vulnerable) using decent vaccines by then, and our exit wasn’t that bad. Theirs is awful.
    The US is considering sampling and sequencing the aircraft wastewater, which would confirm all the sequence info they need, at fairly low cost.
    Are we really getting “plenty of sequence info” from China as @turbotubbs suggests?


    “On Friday, China was accused of withholding Covid data after it emerged that it had shared fewer than 1,000 Covid virus samples with the international scientific community over the past month.”

    - Telegraph
    Hence airliner sewage sampling.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405
    Not sure how many of you follow Kamil Galeev on Twitter - one of those who’s upped his follower count massively since the invasion, and so hated by most academics on both sides that I can’t help but like him (like dear old Francois Balloux on Covid).

    His random flights of fancy on the Russian empire are good value and his latest, on the art of writing boringly, is worth sharing:

    https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1608857949040177153?s=12
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Hearing it is now likely UK will demand that all people coming from China have a negative covid test result

    There's been discussions between ministers and officials all day - sounds like UK will now follow US and other nations

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1608871250075549697

    Ahem. As I predicted
    So? The debate was not about what the government would do, it’s about the need for it. Lots of high profile scientists I’ve heard over the last couple of days say it’s not needed - for instance Callum Semple.
    What you are seeing is herd behaviour from governments.
    I’m merely pointing out that I said this would happen. “The dominos will fall”. Some on here were skeptical

    I agree the science is contentious - however my opinion is this is justified by basic politics alone: western governments need to get tough on Beijing. They freely and wilfully exported their fucking bug around the world in early 2020. Not again

    And we should sequence the shit out of them. Watch for variants
    Happily we are getting plenty of sequence info from China. Assuming those involved are honest, the variants causing the outbreak in China are closely similar to those everywhere else. As expected, they are havin* the exit wave to end all exit waves, just like we did to some extent in 2020. Except we had vaccinated over 90% of people ( and certainly of the most vulnerable) using decent vaccines by then, and our exit wasn’t that bad. Theirs is awful.
    The US is considering sampling and sequencing the aircraft wastewater, which would confirm all the sequence info they need, at fairly low cost.
    Are we really getting “plenty of sequence info” from China as @turbotubbs suggests?


    “On Friday, China was accused of withholding Covid data after it emerged that it had shared fewer than 1,000 Covid virus samples with the international scientific community over the past month.”

    - Telegraph
    Hence airliner sewage sampling.
    Yes indeed

    Right now “don’t trust China” seems a pretty reliable Covid rule of thumb
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    The fact that North Korea has also excluded Chinese tourists is quite striking


    📰🇨🇳North Korea Temporarily Banning Travelers From China: Amid mounting international anxiety over the wave of COVID-19 cases sweeping China, North Korea has introduced a total ban on visitors from its close ally and neighbor. “Chinese citizens world24e.over-blog.com/2022/12/north-…
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,523
    Foxy said:

    Driver said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I mean. Just look at the fucking state of that


    Interesting that the rest of the table shows that UK-born people are more negative in contributions than the migrants.

    Of course, we can assume Migration Watch UK might well have skewed the figures (or, at least, taken the least positive interpretation), but the others do show, consistently that:

    1 - EEA immigrants are the most positive (as you said)
    2 - UK-born (ie non-immigrants) are consistently negative.
    3 - The most recent migrants (ie since 2001, the era of mass immigration) are the most positive.



    I'm sure everyone can pull out what they'd prefer to focus on, but the overall picture does seem to point to those three rules.

    And that without the more recent immigrants (since 2001), especially those from the EEA, we'd be considerably poorer.
    And you’re putting your own positive spin on it!

    Tbf the data is monumentally opaque. Presumably because this is so hard to work out. This table is about as good as it gets and it begs a million questions

    My point in citing it was to counter the glibness of @Gardenwalker - “migrants are net givers”. It’s much more complicated than that

    But common sense tells me Max is right. GDP per cap stopped growing in tandem with GDP when immigration went mad under Blair. That feels at least partly causal, to me

    It's not just common sense, immigrants make up a much higher proportion of low salary and low skill jobs than British people. They also do at the very top, which is why immigration isn't a black and white discussion. We need policies that encourage high skilled, high wage migrants and block low wage and low salary ones to force companies to invest in automation rather than throw cheap labour at it.
    One intriguing example is the Albanian hand car wash, replacing a machine. Five people do the job of one robot. Massively unproductive. Regressive

    And yet the wash is palpably better…
    Eventually it always comes back to the Albanian car wash.

    You can’t argue with the Albanian car wash!

    Soon someone will mention ten to a room slums in Barking, and how house prices would be lower without all the migrants.

    Part of the British malaise, it seems to me, is this willingness to continue to spout what are presumably comforting “truthy” nostra.
    But the Albanian car wash is a true, obvious, real-life example that we have all encountered. That’s it’s value as evidence (I know you don’t like to offer evidence, but some of us are old fashioned)

    It is also interestingly nuanced. These car washes incrementally improve life for many by providing an excellent cheap wash. Yet they are regressive. Complex
    A cheap wash? They cost £20+ round my way.
    Yep, and always busy, while there is no queue at the remaining automated ones. Hand washes are simply much better. It is market forces.
    The typical automatic car wash in the UK is rubbish, but much better automatic car washes exist!
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,204
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of the key drivers of productivity, which doesn't get enough attention, is that it depends enormously on what sectors a country employs people in. You want to maximise your competitive advantage. So, in the UK, financial services and other business services generally (aka as 'the City') show extremely high productivity. Steel production, small scale manufacturing, etc: not so much, given worldwide competition from countries better placed to do these things.

    Bizarrely, the lesson voters take from this is that we should discourage the good bits and encourage the not-so-good bits. That is not a very smart strategy.

    But if you look at countries which have developed entirely new industrial sectors, that argument really doesn’t stand up.
    It’s an argument for stagnation.
    You misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't develop new sectors, quite the opposite. But they need to be ones where we can get a competitive advantage.

    Of course civil servants and politicians are notoriously bad at identifying such sectors (I'm old enough to remember the Wilson government's risible and expensive attempts to do so, and all the many attempts since, except perhaps under Heseltine in the Thatcher governments, have been no better). Luckily in this country we still have a good (by European standards) venture capital industry. Dominic Cummings, crackers though he is, was on to something here, as we saw with the Kate Bingham vaccine procurement taskforce. But look at the flak she got at the time.
    I understand the point - but who would have said that an earthquake prone island with no real technology industry would have such an advantage in chip production ?
    The example of places like Taiwan teach a rather different lesson about what it means.

    Similarly battery manufacturing. Korea has none of the necessary domestic raw materials, and one if its biggest players is a spin out of an oil refining conglomerate.

    What should government do is a harder question, which we’ve been pretty bad at answering. Spending a decade distracted with Brexit almost certainly isn’t the answer.
    I’m not totally sure, but I think Britain is a kind of outlier in its almost total lack of an active industrial policy.

    (NZ is similar).

    Picking winners was a disaster of course, but it’s clear after 40 years that complete laissez faire doesn’t work either. We have been out-invested and out-competed by our rivals.

    Generally I believe government’s role is to invest actively in the supporting infrastructure (transport, skills, research) and incentivise firms to deliver against national “missions”, while ruthlessly checking against native monopolies and “dumping” from abroad.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.

    I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,584
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    Actually I disagree with that I think a huge labour majority would be disastrous for the country and that is not a comment on how labour would govern. Simply because I think whatever any political party tries things are going to continue to get worse during the next parliament. I don't really expect living standards to start rising again till early 2030's at least.

    So we are then in the position tory sub 200, labour huge majority and voters thinking come 2029.....well things were shit....they are even shitter now. We have tried tories, labour haven't improved things in fact I am paying even more tax for less services.

    I can't help thinking might decide to decamp from centrist parties altogether and try a roll of the dice like they did for brexit. Who knows what the hell we might end up with (hint it wont be the lib dems as they are largely in most voters minds the crevice between the buttocks of labour and tories).

    Wouldn't at all surprise me to see green mps and refuk mps and a farage vehicle coming to the fore.
    Yes, I think you are very close to the mark there. In the medium-term there is going to be a significant and lasting move both to the far left and the far right in England. It could end very badly indeed. I’m hoping that Scotland might escape that fate and remain fairly centrist. Obviously, independence makes that more likely.
    Much less likely, given the dislocation and economic hardship that would result.

    I would say Scotland is already becoming quite an extreme country (or at least, is voting for extremist parties) and if 20% was wiped off its GDP that would only get worse.
    Independence would result in economic contraction and unparalled austerity in Scotland, as it struggled to manage its borrowing requirements. EU membership would be years away, and it would lose unimpeded access to the UK market.

    The political consequences would be, ahem, interesting but possibly not a jump to consensual centrism.

    The only good news would be the swift departure of Nicola S from the country as she took on a prestige job with the UN, or whoever.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    Also striking. The departing head of the WHO



    HMG is right
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Did I detect a touch of sarcasm there?
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    Actually I disagree with that I think a huge labour majority would be disastrous for the country and that is not a comment on how labour would govern. Simply because I think whatever any political party tries things are going to continue to get worse during the next parliament. I don't really expect living standards to start rising again till early 2030's at least.

    So we are then in the position tory sub 200, labour huge majority and voters thinking come 2029.....well things were shit....they are even shitter now. We have tried tories, labour haven't improved things in fact I am paying even more tax for less services.

    I can't help thinking might decide to decamp from centrist parties altogether and try a roll of the dice like they did for brexit. Who knows what the hell we might end up with (hint it wont be the lib dems as they are largely in most voters minds the crevice between the buttocks of labour and tories).

    Wouldn't at all surprise me to see green mps and refuk mps and a farage vehicle coming to the fore.
    Yes, I think you are very close to the mark there. In the medium-term there is going to be a significant and lasting move both to the far left and the far right in England. It could end very badly indeed. I’m hoping that Scotland might escape that fate and remain fairly centrist. Obviously, independence makes that more likely.
    Much less likely, given the dislocation and economic hardship that would result.

    I would say Scotland is already becoming quite an extreme country (or at least, is voting for extremist parties) and if 20% was wiped off its GDP that would only get worse.
    Independence would result in economic contraction and unparalled austerity in Scotland, as it struggled to manage its borrowing requirements. EU membership would be years away, and it would lose unimpeded access to the UK market.

    The political consequences would be, ahem, interesting but possibly not a jump to consensual centrism.

    The only good news would be the swift departure of Nicola S from the country as she took on a prestige job with the UN, or whoever.
    Given that the UK is “5% down” after leaving the EU, and was not previously fiscally subsidised by that organisation, we can assume that Scottish independence would deliver a multiple of that.
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,584

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    Actually I disagree with that I think a huge labour majority would be disastrous for the country and that is not a comment on how labour would govern. Simply because I think whatever any political party tries things are going to continue to get worse during the next parliament. I don't really expect living standards to start rising again till early 2030's at least.

    So we are then in the position tory sub 200, labour huge majority and voters thinking come 2029.....well things were shit....they are even shitter now. We have tried tories, labour haven't improved things in fact I am paying even more tax for less services.

    I can't help thinking might decide to decamp from centrist parties altogether and try a roll of the dice like they did for brexit. Who knows what the hell we might end up with (hint it wont be the lib dems as they are largely in most voters minds the crevice between the buttocks of labour and tories).

    Wouldn't at all surprise me to see green mps and refuk mps and a farage vehicle coming to the fore.
    Yes, I think you are very close to the mark there. In the medium-term there is going to be a significant and lasting move both to the far left and the far right in England. It could end very badly indeed. I’m hoping that Scotland might escape that fate and remain fairly centrist. Obviously, independence makes that more likely.
    Much less likely, given the dislocation and economic hardship that would result.

    I would say Scotland is already becoming quite an extreme country (or at least, is voting for extremist parties) and if 20% was wiped off its GDP that would only get worse.
    Independence would result in economic contraction and unparalled austerity in Scotland, as it struggled to manage its borrowing requirements. EU membership would be years away, and it would lose unimpeded access to the UK market.

    The political consequences would be, ahem, interesting but possibly not a jump to consensual centrism.

    The only good news would be the swift departure of Nicola S from the country as she took on a prestige job with the UN, or whoever.
    Given that the UK is “5% down” after leaving the EU, and was not previously fiscally subsidised by that organisation, we can assume that Scottish independence would deliver a multiple of that.
    The interesting thing about all this, is that I have yet to read any serious alternative account from anyone on the Yes side. They KNOW it would be an economic disaster. And yet on they go regardless. The irony is those most likely to lose their benefits and freebies are those most likely to vote for financial self-immolation.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    DougSeal said:

    I now have a post with a like, a flag AND an off-topic. HYUFD quoted it too. My work here is done.

    The holy trinity.
    @MaxPB once off-topiced one of RCS's posts.

    I had to admire his courage. Not his sense of self-preservation.

    Although actually RCS is quite sparing with the ban hammer. He's even let TSE get away with dissing Radiohead.
    TSE is just a creep.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,495
    edited December 2022
    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    I once accidentally off-topiced an Rcs100 post and he got bloody shirty.

    And it wasn’t even about Radiohead.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,495
    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    The Tories lost the Millennial vote when they jettisoned Truss.
    Wrong!!!

    The Tories were on just 9% with under 30s and 19% overall in Truss' final yougov


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Our dependence on vast, corrosive levels of immigration is particularly asinine and harmful given what AI is about to do to 50% of jobs

    I remember when you said that there would be no lorry drivers within ten years, because of autonomous cars. That was what, about ten years ago?

    There is a good chance that this new tech, *if* it plays out as you suggest, actually increases potential employment. In the same way (say) the industrial revolution did. Or the Internet revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Jobs and roles change, but overall employment increases.

    But that's not as dramatic as WE'RE ALL DOOMED !!!!!, so you don't care. ;)
    Autonomous cars are, finally, here


    “sitting at a coffee shop, watching cars fail at the 4 way stop for 2 hours…

    when a fully driverless @Waymo came by driving 100x better than all of them

    i think i’m in love. 😍

    #SelfDrivingCars #future”

    https://twitter.com/clllennox/status/1607916781150306304?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw
    Even you are not this unutterably thick.


    Er, ok. Projection much?

    It’s taken longer than expected, there are still multiple problems to be overcome, but driverless vehicles are now a fact and they are being deployed, commercially

    “Driverless Taxi Downtown Las Vegas. Do you wanna ride? #LasVegas #Halo #SelfDrivingCars”

    https://twitter.com/kassidylane1/status/1607504137855594496?s=46&t=EBpITTRql3u3BuUm95Plmw

    “Waymo’s driverless robotaxis are now doing airport trips in Phoenix / The Alphabet company is getting more confident in its autonomous capabilities, deploying fully driverless cars to Phoenix’s airport to handle the trickiest types of pickups.”

    I reckon this would have accrued much wider attention in normal times - driverless cars! - but unfortunately we don’t lack for major, distracting news
    There is a *vast* amount of difference between these drastically geolocated schemes and true autonomous driving. But as I said, ten years have pretty much passed since your 'prediction', and the UK is short of tens of thousands of HGV drivers.

    Smoke and mirrors mate, smoke and mirrors.

    (BTW, I'm not the person hitting the off-topic button on your posts)
    Yes, aren't they just glorified trams?
    No

    “On my ride home I saw more driverless cars than regular ones”

    https://twitter.com/pizzadj/status/1608358035373838340?s=46&t=1q6_SWByrY2mb1WSMPxdeA

    “The number of lives driverless cars will save is mindblowing. This is awesome.”

    https://twitter.com/kazanjy/status/1605430636218458112?s=46&t=1q6_SWByrY2mb1WSMPxdeA

    “Driverless cars or autonomous vehicles will be in use everywhere within the next six years. (World Economic Forum) #AV #AutoIndustry”

    https://twitter.com/jamesvgingerich/status/1607983056505212928?s=46&t=1q6_SWByrY2mb1WSMPxdeA
    May I just suggest you look at the picture of the car at 3 seconds into the second video, look at the hardware on its roof, and think of how much all of that costs. Then work out why it is not currently a goer...
    “Currently”.
    The cost argument against potentially disruptive technologies is pretty well always fallacious. Once in use, however niche, they just get cheaper.
    Indeed, within limits. Even lidar costs are slowly reducing. But they have not got the tech working well enough yet, and Musk/Tesla's gamble that only a limited number/type of sensors are required might prove fallacious for both him and others. And there is always a minimum cost for this cost, and it is well above zero.
    As is the cost of employing drivers.
    I don’t know how long it will take, but the technology will be there eventually. It’s already in use in limited cases.

    And there’s quite a lot of interesting kit in the space between lidar and Musk’s cameras only ideology. Computing costs, of course, will tend towards zero.
    Of course Tesla doesn't need to pay drivers.

    Tesla Full Self Driving Beta users (real ordinary drivers of Tesla cars - who have paid for the software)
    Q4 2021 60,000
    Q4 2022 285,000

    Will Tesla have to pay lawyers instead, who knows?
    Regardless they must be getting bucketloads of data on which to train their Dojo supercomputer. They may be able to pull off a safer than human system at some stage, but I think Europe and Asia will be harder than the US.
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 952
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,495
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
    They are now.

    The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.

    For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.

    As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!

  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.

    We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.

    https://twitter.com/ned_donovan/status/1608841887208845312?s=46&t=Yw0ijQ7QMYOdwHrpa1vbLw

    On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.

  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,905
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    The Tories lost the Millennial vote when they jettisoned Truss.
    Wrong!!!

    The Tories were on just 9% with under 30s and 19% overall in Truss' final yougov


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
    Whatever. You're still f*cked at the next general election.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,601
    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
    The weakness of this relative approach is that it could instead mean that the current older age groups have become MORE conservative than their predecessors - which I find the more plausible explanation when you look at the representative Tory or Republican. (This is why the "Boomer" indicator is rocketing upward, almost mechanically. All the deviations from average have to add to zero.)
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,905

    I once accidentally off-topiced an Rcs100 post and he got bloody shirty.

    And it wasn’t even about Radiohead.

    I've been off-topiced 53 times. Don't ever do that to me again. Or else!
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,268

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
    The science is disputed tho. Some boffins think this is justifiable

    Moreover, politics demands we do this. Fuck the CCP. Remember how they seeded Original Covid around the world? Just like this. Grr
    You’re being incredibly short sighted about this. These measures only serve to further legitimise the use of NPIs that have no recognisable impact on health outcomes at all but harm the economy and undermine freedoms. First they come for Chinese air passengers. Next they come for Camden dwelling socialites.
    The politics here overrides the relatively minor cost of stopping a few coughing Chinese tourists

    The CCP is treating the world with virological
    contempt. Again. Enough

    Yes, this is very much aimed at China. Deliberately
    No. It reaffirms the precedent that it’s appropriate for western governments to restrict basic freedoms for no purpose whatsoever.
    Agreed. UK is succumbing to whatever the international version of peer pressure is.
    There is no "basic freedom" for Chinese nationals to visit the UK.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,495
    EPG said:

    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
    The weakness of this relative approach is that it could instead mean that the current older age groups have become MORE conservative than their predecessors - which I find the more plausible explanation when you look at the representative Tory or Republican. (This is why the "Boomer" indicator is rocketing upward, almost mechanically. All the deviations from average have to add to zero.)
    Of course the Tories could still win most seats even if they lost most voters under 50, provided they won voters over 50 now.

    At the moment their problem is that are only winning over 65s
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,495
    edited December 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
    They are now.

    The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.

    For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.

    As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!

    Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,

    Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759028582338560

    This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.

    Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.

    Your call.
    Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.

    As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,601
    HYUFD said:

    EPG said:

    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
    The weakness of this relative approach is that it could instead mean that the current older age groups have become MORE conservative than their predecessors - which I find the more plausible explanation when you look at the representative Tory or Republican. (This is why the "Boomer" indicator is rocketing upward, almost mechanically. All the deviations from average have to add to zero.)
    Of course the Tories could still win most seats even if they lost most voters under 50, provided they won voters over 50 now.

    At the moment their problem is that are only winning over 65s
    I don't know if age groups is a useful way to think about their current problems. They just need more votes from everybody than the other guy.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    DougSeal said:

    I now have a post with a like, a flag AND an off-topic. HYUFD quoted it too. My work here is done.

    The holy trinity.
    @MaxPB once off-topiced one of RCS's posts.

    I had to admire his courage. Not his sense of self-preservation.

    Although actually RCS is quite sparing with the ban hammer. He's even let TSE get away with dissing Radiohead.
    TSE is just a creep.
    I had no idea you were Radiohead's other fan, er, another Radiohead fan.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,905
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
    They are now.

    The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.

    For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.

    As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!

    Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,

    Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759028582338560

    This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.

    Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.

    Your call.
    Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.

    As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
    You're crap, and you know you are.

    You're also doomed, and you know you are.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736
    EPG said:

    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
    The weakness of this relative approach is that it could instead mean that the current older age groups have become MORE conservative than their predecessors - which I find the more plausible explanation when you look at the representative Tory or Republican. (This is why the "Boomer" indicator is rocketing upward, almost mechanically. All the deviations from average have to add to zero.)
    Yes, it is certainly true that Boomers and Golden generation are more conservative than they used to be.

    It is nonetheless still of interest that Millennials are not trending Tory with time
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,767
    WillG said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
    The science is disputed tho. Some boffins think this is justifiable

    Moreover, politics demands we do this. Fuck the CCP. Remember how they seeded Original Covid around the world? Just like this. Grr
    You’re being incredibly short sighted about this. These measures only serve to further legitimise the use of NPIs that have no recognisable impact on health outcomes at all but harm the economy and undermine freedoms. First they come for Chinese air passengers. Next they come for Camden dwelling socialites.
    The politics here overrides the relatively minor cost of stopping a few coughing Chinese tourists

    The CCP is treating the world with virological
    contempt. Again. Enough

    Yes, this is very much aimed at China. Deliberately
    No. It reaffirms the precedent that it’s appropriate for western governments to restrict basic freedoms for no purpose whatsoever.
    Agreed. UK is succumbing to whatever the international version of peer pressure is.
    There is no "basic freedom" for Chinese nationals to visit the UK.
    True. Doesn't change the fact that the China travel policy belongs in the realm of "something must be done, this is something, so we're going to do it." Precisely the same reasoning could be used to bring back masks and other such impositions, arbitrarily, at any time. Governments should not be inventing needless new rules to mess about with people's lives for no good reason. "We need to make it look as if we're taking this seriously," i.e. party political PR, is not a good reason.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405
    pigeon said:

    WillG said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
    The science is disputed tho. Some boffins think this is justifiable

    Moreover, politics demands we do this. Fuck the CCP. Remember how they seeded Original Covid around the world? Just like this. Grr
    You’re being incredibly short sighted about this. These measures only serve to further legitimise the use of NPIs that have no recognisable impact on health outcomes at all but harm the economy and undermine freedoms. First they come for Chinese air passengers. Next they come for Camden dwelling socialites.
    The politics here overrides the relatively minor cost of stopping a few coughing Chinese tourists

    The CCP is treating the world with virological
    contempt. Again. Enough

    Yes, this is very much aimed at China. Deliberately
    No. It reaffirms the precedent that it’s appropriate for western governments to restrict basic freedoms for no purpose whatsoever.
    Agreed. UK is succumbing to whatever the international version of peer pressure is.
    There is no "basic freedom" for Chinese nationals to visit the UK.
    True. Doesn't change the fact that the China travel policy belongs in the realm of "something must be done, this is something, so we're going to do it." Precisely the same reasoning could be used to bring back masks and other such impositions, arbitrarily, at any time. Governments should not be inventing needless new rules to mess about with people's lives for no good reason. "We need to make it look as if we're taking this seriously," i.e. party political PR, is not a good reason.
    Yes, it’s nonsense. The actual scientists of Covid Twitter are united on this point.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,767
    Foxy said:

    EPG said:

    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
    The weakness of this relative approach is that it could instead mean that the current older age groups have become MORE conservative than their predecessors - which I find the more plausible explanation when you look at the representative Tory or Republican. (This is why the "Boomer" indicator is rocketing upward, almost mechanically. All the deviations from average have to add to zero.)
    Yes, it is certainly true that Boomers and Golden generation are more conservative than they used to be.

    It is nonetheless still of interest that Millennials are not trending Tory with time
    Because they are being continually bled to enrich the middle-class elderly. It's as simple as that.
  • Options

    This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.

    We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.

    https://twitter.com/ned_donovan/status/1608841887208845312?s=46&t=Yw0ijQ7QMYOdwHrpa1vbLw

    On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.

    The system that's cheapest to run and morally best is "we trust you, but don't take the piss"- management by honesty
    box.

    For various reasons, that doesn't work any more. That's partly unfortunate because the checks are expensive, and partly because it doesn't seem to stop piss being taken.
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 952
    EPG said:

    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
    The weakness of this relative approach is that it could instead mean that the current older age groups have become MORE conservative than their predecessors - which I find the more plausible explanation when you look at the representative Tory or Republican. (This is why the "Boomer" indicator is rocketing upward, almost mechanically. All the deviations from average have to add to zero.)
    True, it's not a perfect measure.

    What it highlights is what we already knew: people in their 30s and early 40s remain politically aligned with younger generations on economic issues, unsurprising as most are far below where they thought they'd be in relation to property wealth (even for those who have bought it's probably not what they'd like). And that the 'boomer' generation is strongly conservative and wants to preserve the status quo so long as pensions and healthcare remain funded.

    It doesn't mean the right-wing parties are doomed, but that they will eventually need to reinvent themselves in a way that appeals to Millennials and younger. Culture wars or promises like Brexit won't cut it.
  • Options
    TresTres Posts: 2,403
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
    They are now.

    The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.

    For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.

    As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!

    Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,

    Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759028582338560

    This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.

    Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.

    Your call.
    Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.

    As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
    10 exclamation marks. I think we're finally getting through to him. Who wants to try the IQ conversation again?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
    They are now.

    The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.

    For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.

    As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!

    Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,

    Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759028582338560

    This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.

    Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.

    Your call.
    Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.

    As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
    10 exclamation marks. I think we're finally getting through to him. Who wants to try the IQ conversation again?
    Or alternatively Leon's hacked his account.
  • Options
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.

    I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
    Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.

    Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.

    I think you're being very naive about Labour.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,601
    Ratters said:

    EPG said:

    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
    The weakness of this relative approach is that it could instead mean that the current older age groups have become MORE conservative than their predecessors - which I find the more plausible explanation when you look at the representative Tory or Republican. (This is why the "Boomer" indicator is rocketing upward, almost mechanically. All the deviations from average have to add to zero.)
    True, it's not a perfect measure.

    What it highlights is what we already knew: people in their 30s and early 40s remain politically aligned with younger generations on economic issues, unsurprising as most are far below where they thought they'd be in relation to property wealth (even for those who have bought it's probably not what they'd like). And that the 'boomer' generation is strongly conservative and wants to preserve the status quo so long as pensions and healthcare remain funded.

    It doesn't mean the right-wing parties are doomed, but that they will eventually need to reinvent themselves in a way that appeals to Millennials and younger. Culture wars or promises like Brexit won't cut it.
    As a relative measure comparing different groups of contemporary voters, I don't think it says those things at all. It says that the generation gap has increased, and it can't say anything more than that, in particular it can't say who is responsible in absolute terms. So the narratives about Millennials not being "on time" could be total misfires, if the disproportionate change is coming from older generations.

    A trend of absolute vote intention would say that older groups became Conservative to a barely-precedented degree in 2019 - this could fall foul of other problems as you mention, but it's the only approach that even hints at who's causing the change.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.

    I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
    Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.

    Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.

    I think you're being very naive about Labour.
    The truth is there is no 'conservative' party standing for office right now, offering boring competence and gradual movement. It's different shades of radicals who want to cause disruption.

    The snag the Tories have is that they don't have much of an answer to 'how can Labour be significantly worse than you have been?'
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736
    edited December 2022
    Ratters said:

    EPG said:

    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
    The weakness of this relative approach is that it could instead mean that the current older age groups have become MORE conservative than their predecessors - which I find the more plausible explanation when you look at the representative Tory or Republican. (This is why the "Boomer" indicator is rocketing upward, almost mechanically. All the deviations from average have to add to zero.)
    True, it's not a perfect measure.

    What it highlights is what we already knew: people in their 30s and early 40s remain politically aligned with younger generations on economic issues, unsurprising as most are far below where they thought they'd be in relation to property wealth (even for those who have bought it's probably not what they'd like). And that the 'boomer' generation is strongly conservative and wants to preserve the status quo so long as pensions and healthcare remain funded.

    It doesn't mean the right-wing parties are doomed, but that they will eventually need to reinvent themselves in a way that appeals to Millennials and younger. Culture wars or promises like Brexit won't cut it.
    There is a TikTok meme that people, from high school upwards used to dress like old people, but I think that it is wrong. It is that Gen X and Millennials dress like teens, and also retain the music, clothes and hobbies of their youth, such as gaming. I think remaining in perpetual youth includes politics. Gen X and onwards are the Peter Pan generations that refuse to grow old.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,905

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.

    I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
    Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.

    Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.

    I think you're being very naive about Labour.
    Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
    Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
    And things like real value added vs remuneration extracted. The upshot is most low paid people are net contributors and many highly paid people are net takers. Counterintuitive yet true.
    Would you elaborate?

    @kinabalu
    Yes. Imagine 2 Me's.

    Me1 is an astute spotter of underpriced assets. I buy and sell them - not changing them in any way - and make £50m in a year, paying £10m tax, netting £40m.

    Me2 is a low wage toiler in a factory earning £25k, paying £3k tax, netting £22k.

    Me2 (low skill, low pay) is a Net Contributor, Me1 (high skill, high pay) is a Net Taker.
    Haven't you just generalised bond, currency, share etc trading?
    Interesting to meet someone who doesn’t believe that finding the best market for an item doesn’t add value. That’s an old old belief.
    It's a hopelessly romantic view of trading to think that this is what it usually entails.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,281
    edited December 2022
    If this is true, its huge....its the machine that makes the machines....and only one company in the world can currently do it.

    China cracks advanced microchip technology in blow to Western sanctions
    Huawei patents method of making ultra-small microchips closely guarded by the West

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/30/china-cracks-advanced-microchip-technology-blow-western-sanctions/
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,767
    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.

    I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
    Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.

    Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.

    I think you're being very naive about Labour.
    The truth is there is no 'conservative' party standing for office right now, offering boring competence and gradual movement. It's different shades of radicals who want to cause disruption.

    The snag the Tories have is that they don't have much of an answer to 'how can Labour be significantly worse than you have been?'
    I don't think we're talking so much about conservative or radical philosophies, as we are about a complete lack of any coherent platform beyond a reverse Robin Hood that, broadly, shunts money from poor young people to rich old ones. That's the entire purpose of the Tory Party, and we simply don't know whether Labour will offer significant change or simply apply a veneer of redistribution to the existing model.

    To the extent that there's any radicalism left, it's in the form of the suspicion of the ERG wing of the Tory party of any muddy compromises with the hated EU. That's probably about it.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223
    TimS said:

    pigeon said:

    WillG said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I predict nearly all major nations will now follow this

    “UK set to require negative test for China arrivals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64130655

    Because, what if you don’t do this, and China’s massive exit wave coughs up a hideous new variant?

    Exactly herd behaviour, and wibblers without a basic understanding of science wibbling ‘WHY ARENT WE TESTING ALL THE CHINESE PASSENGERS!!!!’
    Never forget, despite PB, lockdowns were insanely popular.
    The science is disputed tho. Some boffins think this is justifiable

    Moreover, politics demands we do this. Fuck the CCP. Remember how they seeded Original Covid around the world? Just like this. Grr
    You’re being incredibly short sighted about this. These measures only serve to further legitimise the use of NPIs that have no recognisable impact on health outcomes at all but harm the economy and undermine freedoms. First they come for Chinese air passengers. Next they come for Camden dwelling socialites.
    The politics here overrides the relatively minor cost of stopping a few coughing Chinese tourists

    The CCP is treating the world with virological
    contempt. Again. Enough

    Yes, this is very much aimed at China. Deliberately
    No. It reaffirms the precedent that it’s appropriate for western governments to restrict basic freedoms for no purpose whatsoever.
    Agreed. UK is succumbing to whatever the international version of peer pressure is.
    There is no "basic freedom" for Chinese nationals to visit the UK.
    True. Doesn't change the fact that the China travel policy belongs in the realm of "something must be done, this is something, so we're going to do it." Precisely the same reasoning could be used to bring back masks and other such impositions, arbitrarily, at any time. Governments should not be inventing needless new rules to mess about with people's lives for no good reason. "We need to make it look as if we're taking this seriously," i.e. party political PR, is not a good reason.
    Yes, it’s nonsense. The actual scientists of Covid Twitter are united on this point.
    Driven by politics not science. But so was an awful lot about Covid responses generally.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
    They are now.

    The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.

    For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.

    As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!

    Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,

    Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759028582338560

    This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.

    Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.

    Your call.
    Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.

    As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
    Yes, but look at the actual graphs;



    Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.

    Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).

    That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.

    Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,583
    Foxy said:

    Ratters said:

    EPG said:

    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
    The weakness of this relative approach is that it could instead mean that the current older age groups have become MORE conservative than their predecessors - which I find the more plausible explanation when you look at the representative Tory or Republican. (This is why the "Boomer" indicator is rocketing upward, almost mechanically. All the deviations from average have to add to zero.)
    True, it's not a perfect measure.

    What it highlights is what we already knew: people in their 30s and early 40s remain politically aligned with younger generations on economic issues, unsurprising as most are far below where they thought they'd be in relation to property wealth (even for those who have bought it's probably not what they'd like). And that the 'boomer' generation is strongly conservative and wants to preserve the status quo so long as pensions and healthcare remain funded.

    It doesn't mean the right-wing parties are doomed, but that they will eventually need to reinvent themselves in a way that appeals to Millennials and younger. Culture wars or promises like Brexit won't cut it.
    There is a TikTok meme that people, from high school upwards used to dress like old people, but I think that it is wrong. It is that Gen X and Millennials dress like teens, and also retain the music, clothes and hobbies of their youth, such as gaming. I think remaining in perpetual youth includes politics. Gen X and onwards are the Peter Pan generations that refuse to grow old.
    I don't think its refuse, games are as much their culture as TV/cinema/sport are to the preceding generations. Maybe its childish to those who grew up in the 60-70s but its simply pursuing long held interests.

    Can't see much difference in watching the PL on a Saturday or playing the latest indie game.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,905
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
    Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
    And things like real value added vs remuneration extracted. The upshot is most low paid people are net contributors and many highly paid people are net takers. Counterintuitive yet true.
    Would you elaborate?

    @kinabalu
    Yes. Imagine 2 Me's.

    Me1 is an astute spotter of underpriced assets. I buy and sell them - not changing them in any way - and make £50m in a year, paying £10m tax, netting £40m.

    Me2 is a low wage toiler in a factory earning £25k, paying £3k tax, netting £22k.

    Me2 (low skill, low pay) is a Net Contributor, Me1 (high skill, high pay) is a Net Taker.
    Haven't you just generalised bond, currency, share etc trading?
    Interesting to meet someone who doesn’t believe that finding the best market for an item doesn’t add value. That’s an old old belief.
    It's a hopelessly romantic view of trading to think that this is what it usually entails.
    Wealth accumulators like to describe themselves as wealth creators, when in fact they usually create the square root of fuck-all.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.

    I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
    Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.

    Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.

    I think you're being very naive about Labour.
    The truth is there is no 'conservative' party standing for office right now, offering boring competence and gradual movement. It's different shades of radicals who want to cause disruption.

    The snag the Tories have is that they don't have much of an answer to 'how can Labour be significantly worse than you have been?'
    Which is a fantastic mnemonic but there will always be those who seek to dine on this sort of sentiment and it has been the enabler of all sorts of terrible governments and atrocious policies throughout the ages.

    They can very easily be worse. Much much worse.

    Those who think differently are suffering from two things: a contemporary anger that blinds them and a lack of imagination.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,601
    Much of my grand-theory-of-Millennials scepticism arises from the fact that they are skewing toward the left-wing option in the USA and UK, toward the right-wing option in France and Italy, and not strongly toward either direction in Germany or Canada. It's not clear that the universal challenges to property prices and changes in social mores in the Western world is leading to a definitive polarisation among Millennials on a single set of economic or social grounds.
  • Options

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.

    I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
    Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.

    Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.

    I think you're being very naive about Labour.
    Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
    You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.

    Please don't respond to my posts again.

  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,194
    Foxy said:

    Ratters said:

    EPG said:

    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    I think you misunderstood the metric used by the FT.

    It was measuring relative left- or right-wing leanings of age cohorts relative to the average voter in a given election. That means that an age group could still vote more for the right-wing party (Tories, as per 2019) while still being considerably more left-wing than the average voter.

    It's a statistical approach that aims to view underlying trends for an age group in a way that's not distorted by how parties become more and less popular through an electoral cycle.
    The weakness of this relative approach is that it could instead mean that the current older age groups have become MORE conservative than their predecessors - which I find the more plausible explanation when you look at the representative Tory or Republican. (This is why the "Boomer" indicator is rocketing upward, almost mechanically. All the deviations from average have to add to zero.)
    True, it's not a perfect measure.

    What it highlights is what we already knew: people in their 30s and early 40s remain politically aligned with younger generations on economic issues, unsurprising as most are far below where they thought they'd be in relation to property wealth (even for those who have bought it's probably not what they'd like). And that the 'boomer' generation is strongly conservative and wants to preserve the status quo so long as pensions and healthcare remain funded.

    It doesn't mean the right-wing parties are doomed, but that they will eventually need to reinvent themselves in a way that appeals to Millennials and younger. Culture wars or promises like Brexit won't cut it.
    There is a TikTok meme that people, from high school upwards used to dress like old people, but I think that it is wrong. It is that Gen X and Millennials dress like teens, and also retain the music, clothes and hobbies of their youth, such as gaming. I think remaining in perpetual youth includes politics. Gen X and onwards are the Peter Pan generations that refuse to grow old.
    Do young people dress like anything much? I have a young female relative that emulates what I'd have once called a bag-lady. My young male relatives seem to do absolutely nothing by way of attention to their attire.

    I'm certainly now 'old people', but I'm not sure I dress in any clear and obvious (definitely not that!) fashion. I guess I wear jeans badly, although not tradesman badly. My shoes are mostly comfy. And of course I wear cufflinks.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.

    Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.

    Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
    Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
    And things like real value added vs remuneration extracted. The upshot is most low paid people are net contributors and many highly paid people are net takers. Counterintuitive yet true.
    Would you elaborate?

    @kinabalu
    Yes. Imagine 2 Me's.

    Me1 is an astute spotter of underpriced assets. I buy and sell them - not changing them in any way - and make £50m in a year, paying £10m tax, netting £40m.

    Me2 is a low wage toiler in a factory earning £25k, paying £3k tax, netting £22k.

    Me2 (low skill, low pay) is a Net Contributor, Me1 (high skill, high pay) is a Net Taker.
    Haven't you just generalised bond, currency, share etc trading?
    Interesting to meet someone who doesn’t believe that finding the best market for an item doesn’t add value. That’s an old old belief.
    It's a hopelessly romantic view of trading to think that this is what it usually entails.
    A couple of things I have read.

    One (it was an article about tracker funds) pointed out that every City trade was someone getting it right and someone getting it wrong. If medicine or education worked on the basis of "half our decisions are wrong", we'd rightly be crucified.

    Another was PJ O'Rourke (that famous lefty) talking to people on Wall Street. On condition of strict anonymity, none of them could justify Wall St salaries, and none of them tried. We need liquidity, and we need the noise to generate it. But most of the noise is random.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,601

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    As I pointed out earlier that is rubbish.

    Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.

    As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?s=20&t=RustK6E-JyV25i6wU0WesA
    By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
    The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
    Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.

    The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
    In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
    They are now.

    The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.

    For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.

    As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!

    Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,

    Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759028582338560

    This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.

    Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.

    Your call.
    Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.

    As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
    Yes, but look at the actual graphs;



    Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.

    Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).

    That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.

    Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
    This is the right way to think about the question, but in so far as the only data we have for this new era are 2017-19, and the pattern is continuing or even intensifying, the data are pointing toward the "conservative acceleration" hypothesis.
  • Options

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of PB’s favourite arguments…

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.

    I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
    Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.

    Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.

    I think you're being very naive about Labour.
    :innocent:

This discussion has been closed.