Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Announcing PB’s General Election night event + today’s Popu

SystemSystem Posts: 11,684
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Announcing PB’s General Election night event + today’s Populus poll

The event will be ticket only from 10pm when polls close (the pub will be open to the public that day from 5pm however). The cost is £15 and that includes tea and coffee, mineral water and some snacks. The bar with extensive range of real ale, craft beer and all the rest will be open all night. The large HD screen is visible from every spot in the bar. We will show BBC coverage.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,016
    edited April 2015
    First?

    Edit: I hope everyone enjoys themselves on what promises to be a rather interesting and unpredictable election night.
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Students in sample 197 (weight down to 160)
    Full Time Workers 824 (weight up to to 901)
    Private/HA rentals 481 (weight down to 400)
    Council rentals 118 (weight up to 287)

    Lot of adjusting going on.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,855

    First?

    Edit: I hope everyone enjoys themselves on what promises to be a rather interesting and unpredictable election night.

    Hang on - if you're predicting it's going to be unpredictable that is, I would argue, predictable. Indeed, the one predictable thing about the election is its unpredictability so the predictable unpredictability of the election becomes in itself predictable.

    Don't get me started on how interesting it's going to be - Steve Davis is "interesting", a Ghirardelli hot fudge ice cream sundae paid out of winnings on the Las Vegas Strip is more interesting in my view.

  • Options
    What's the wifi coverage like there?

    Also what's the mobile coverage like for o2 and Three?

    Some of us need the interweb for betting and writing PB threads.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited April 2015
    PB’s General Election night event?

    A rather grand title for what sounds like a good old traditional lock-in to me..! :lol:

    [edit] - well done to the organisers of the event, hope it proves popular.
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    FWIW I agree with Topping on previous thread... 'They might be bad at politics but they are good at running the country. Which would you prefer your politicians to be good at?'
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    On that LD Wales & SW subsample...

    They got 30% last time. My modelling had them on 13.5% (even that was only enough to save Yeovil, Brecon, Thornbury, Ceredigion & Bristol West).

    The most recent subsamples from Populus are

    9% - 6% - 10% - 11% - 14% - 11%

    Looks like rcs may be calling this correctly...
  • Options
    MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    A 4.5% swing across England is pretty meaningless in terms of seats if it's because of Labour picking up excess LD votes and the Tories losing votes to Ukip in safe seats.

    For example, in the north east there is a lump of 24% that voted LD but they only have 2 seats up there. Imagine Labour getting most of the votes and maybe one of the seats. The same thing can happen in the west midlands where the Lib Dems got 21% and 2 seats, and the east midlands where they got 21% and ZERO seats, and Yorkshire where they got 23% and 3 seats. Labour could pick up all the votes and seats in these areas, which would add circa 9% to their national vote tally and only 7 seats.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    On that LD Wales & SW subsample...

    They got 30% last time. My modelling had them on 13.5% (even that was only enough to save Yeovil, Brecon, Thornbury, Ceredigion & Bristol West).

    The most recent subsamples from Populus are

    9% - 6% - 10% - 11% - 14% - 11%

    Looks like rcs may be calling this correctly...

    Back them in Bristol West at your own risk I reckon.
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    I'm tempted...

    but as TSE said - what's the wifi/mobile network coverage like?
  • Options
    Just watching Daily Politics

    They have someone from the Socialist party on and brought up the twitter handle https://twitter.com/official_mrlp
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    stodge said:

    First?

    Edit: I hope everyone enjoys themselves on what promises to be a rather interesting and unpredictable election night.

    Hang on - if you're predicting it's going to be unpredictable that is, I would argue, predictable. Indeed, the one predictable thing about the election is its unpredictability so the predictable unpredictability of the election becomes in itself predictable.

    Don't get me started on how interesting it's going to be - Steve Davis is "interesting", a Ghirardelli hot fudge ice cream sundae paid out of winnings on the Las Vegas Strip is more interesting in my view.

    You do not think we live in 'interesting times' then?
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pulpstar said:

    On that LD Wales & SW subsample...

    They got 30% last time. My modelling had them on 13.5% (even that was only enough to save Yeovil, Brecon, Thornbury, Ceredigion & Bristol West).

    The most recent subsamples from Populus are

    9% - 6% - 10% - 11% - 14% - 11%

    Looks like rcs may be calling this correctly...

    Back them in Bristol West at your own risk I reckon.
    Yeah I've not really modelled the Greens.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,862
    Todays Populus - EICIPM in 20 days time
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    Millsy said:

    A 4.5% swing across England is pretty meaningless in terms of seats if it's because of Labour picking up excess LD votes and the Tories losing votes to Ukip in safe seats.

    For example, in the north east there is a lump of 24% that voted LD but they only have 2 seats up there. Imagine Labour getting most of the votes and maybe one of the seats. The same thing can happen in the west midlands where the Lib Dems got 21% and 2 seats, and the east midlands where they got 21% and ZERO seats, and Yorkshire where they got 23% and 3 seats. Labour could pick up all the votes and seats in these areas, which would add circa 9% to their national vote tally and only 7 seats.

    Under UNS, Labour would gain 54 seats from the Conservatives, and 11 from the Lib Dems. The Conservatives would gain 17 from the Lib Dems.

    We can assume that incumbents will outperform these figures, however.
  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    Pulpstar said:

    On that LD Wales & SW subsample...

    They got 30% last time. My modelling had them on 13.5% (even that was only enough to save Yeovil, Brecon, Thornbury, Ceredigion & Bristol West).

    The most recent subsamples from Populus are

    9% - 6% - 10% - 11% - 14% - 11%

    Looks like rcs may be calling this correctly...

    Back them in Bristol West at your own risk I reckon.
    No chance in bristol west. Anecdotally I know but the former LDs I know there are going back to Blair free Labour or the strong green candidate.

    I had all the others in my prediction as staying with LDs but I live in Thornbury and Yate and we have been bombarded by leaflets from the Tory over the last twelve months. Steve Webb the lib dem is very highly thought of locally from the people I have spoken to and should get back in.
  • Options
    BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Not sure about that populus. 82% certain to vote UKIP seems very high.
  • Options
    BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Need more polling...
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,855


    You do not think we live in 'interesting times' then?

    That may be our curse but said times may also be a-changin' (or perhaps not).

  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    chestnut said:

    Students in sample 197 (weight down to 160)
    Full Time Workers 824 (weight up to to 901)
    Private/HA rentals 481 (weight down to 400)
    Council rentals 118 (weight up to 287)

    Lot of adjusting going on.

    Is any of this real then? Was the BBC debate audience self selecting in that they applied and were then 'weeded out' (or 'in') according to some pollsters idea of demographics? Does 'applying' in the sense of the new quantum politics actually affect the result of the selection (observation)?
  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    I know the Finborough well, a handy stopping point between Earls Court station and Stamford Bridge.
  • Options
    I've asked Mike to ask Stonch what the wifi/mobile coverage is like there.
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    I am not sure Mr Bell should have mentioned 'craft beer'. That might be the biggest controversy of the night.
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Latest YG implies that the Lib Dems will get just 90,000 votes in the whole of Wales.
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    This is the first pb event that I am very tempted to attend (not least cause I will actually be in the country).

    However I second TSE's caveat, some of us like to have multiple devices on the go - iPads and smartphones, etc, during the events, so we need good wifi. Is the pub up to snuff, connectionally?

    I have visions of a bar full of people, silently, staring at their iphones, tapping away occasionally, and averting their eyes from other humans. There will be fulsome communication, bonhomie and maybe the odd "did you spill my pint?" moment, of course, but only through the medium of ascii.

    Should be a rocking good do.

  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    Pulpstar said:

    On that LD Wales & SW subsample...

    They got 30% last time. My modelling had them on 13.5% (even that was only enough to save Yeovil, Brecon, Thornbury, Ceredigion & Bristol West).

    The most recent subsamples from Populus are

    9% - 6% - 10% - 11% - 14% - 11%

    Looks like rcs may be calling this correctly...

    Back them in Bristol West at your own risk I reckon.
    Yeah I've not really modelled the Greens.
    Also Bristol West has a large student population who I would expect to be less favoured towards the LDs this time around.
  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    chestnut said:

    Latest YG implies that the Lib Dems will get just 90,000 votes in the whole of Wales.

    I am almost certain they will get more than that. It would be in the realms of total wipe out if that is true.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    Pulpstar said:

    On that LD Wales & SW subsample...

    They got 30% last time. My modelling had them on 13.5% (even that was only enough to save Yeovil, Brecon, Thornbury, Ceredigion & Bristol West).

    The most recent subsamples from Populus are

    9% - 6% - 10% - 11% - 14% - 11%

    Looks like rcs may be calling this correctly...

    Back them in Bristol West at your own risk I reckon.
    No chance in bristol west. Anecdotally I know but the former LDs I know there are going back to Blair free Labour or the strong green candidate.

    I had all the others in my prediction as staying with LDs but I live in Thornbury and Yate and we have been bombarded by leaflets from the Tory over the last twelve months. Steve Webb the lib dem is very highly thought of locally from the people I have spoken to and should get back in.
    "I had all the others in my prediction as staying with LDs" - which seats are these, please?
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Jeff tells me that there are two good Wifi connections (a primary and a back-up) and all the mobile networks have coverage in the pub.
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    "Right next door to us [The Finborough Arms] is Firezza who make some of the best wood fire pizzas in London. Their extensive menu is available to our customers. We handle everything and serve you delicious pizza at your table. Perfect with a pint!"

    I would love to, but sadly I can't make it happen.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,016
    stodge said:

    First?

    Edit: I hope everyone enjoys themselves on what promises to be a rather interesting and unpredictable election night.

    Hang on - if you're predicting it's going to be unpredictable that is, I would argue, predictable. Indeed, the one predictable thing about the election is its unpredictability so the predictable unpredictability of the election becomes in itself predictable.

    Don't get me started on how interesting it's going to be - Steve Davis is "interesting", a Ghirardelli hot fudge ice cream sundae paid out of winnings on the Las Vegas Strip is more interesting in my view.

    I was thinking more of interesting as in: "may you live in interesting times".
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,353
    Sean_F said:

    Millsy said:

    A 4.5% swing across England is pretty meaningless in terms of seats if it's because of Labour picking up excess LD votes and the Tories losing votes to Ukip in safe seats.

    For example, in the north east there is a lump of 24% that voted LD but they only have 2 seats up there. Imagine Labour getting most of the votes and maybe one of the seats. The same thing can happen in the west midlands where the Lib Dems got 21% and 2 seats, and the east midlands where they got 21% and ZERO seats, and Yorkshire where they got 23% and 3 seats. Labour could pick up all the votes and seats in these areas, which would add circa 9% to their national vote tally and only 7 seats.

    Under UNS, Labour would gain 54 seats from the Conservatives, and 11 from the Lib Dems. The Conservatives would gain 17 from the Lib Dems.

    We can assume that incumbents will outperform these figures, however.
    Looks like it'll be between 25-40 Lab gains from the Tories atm and for the Tories to gain 9-14 from the LDs.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Anyone able to quote the poll of polls 3 weeks out from 2010 and the eventual result ? What deviations are possible ?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,016

    SeanT said:

    This is the first pb event that I am very tempted to attend (not least cause I will actually be in the country).

    However I second TSE's caveat, some of us like to have multiple devices on the go - iPads and smartphones, etc, during the events, so we need good wifi. Is the pub up to snuff, connectionally?

    I have visions of a bar full of people, silently, staring at their iphones, tapping away occasionally, and averting their eyes from other humans. There will be fulsome communication, bonhomie and maybe the odd "did you spill my pint?" moment, of course, but only through the medium of ascii.

    Should be a rocking good do.
    Sounds like an early 1990s spodmeet. Although without the sex. Hopefully.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,862
    EICIPM CROSSOVER on Betfair now 1.94

    Dave 2.06

    No wonder DH thinks Tories are walking the best campaign!!
  • Options
    TGOHF said:

    Anyone able to quote the poll of polls 3 weeks out from 2010 and the eventual result ? What deviations are possible ?

    Not a good comparison.

    Right in the middle of the Cleggasm.

    On the 17th of April 2010, ICM had Con 33, Lab 28, LD 30
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,353
    Good on Jeff for hosting this. I'll be spending election night with some old friends down in the New Forest. Two Tories, a LD, Labourite and a Kipper. A few others who are apolitical.

    Sorry to miss this one in London: it will be a thrilling and exciting night!
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    SeanT said:

    Sean_F said:

    Millsy said:

    A 4.5% swing across England is pretty meaningless in terms of seats if it's because of Labour picking up excess LD votes and the Tories losing votes to Ukip in safe seats.

    For example, in the north east there is a lump of 24% that voted LD but they only have 2 seats up there. Imagine Labour getting most of the votes and maybe one of the seats. The same thing can happen in the west midlands where the Lib Dems got 21% and 2 seats, and the east midlands where they got 21% and ZERO seats, and Yorkshire where they got 23% and 3 seats. Labour could pick up all the votes and seats in these areas, which would add circa 9% to their national vote tally and only 7 seats.

    Under UNS, Labour would gain 54 seats from the Conservatives, and 11 from the Lib Dems. The Conservatives would gain 17 from the Lib Dems.

    We can assume that incumbents will outperform these figures, however.
    I stand by my official predix earlier today:

    Tories: 278
    Labour: 282
    LDs: 26
    UKIP: 2
    Green: 1
    SNP: 39
    Utter dogs dinner there.
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    TGOHF said:

    Anyone able to quote the poll of polls 3 weeks out from 2010 and the eventual result ? What deviations are possible ?

    Here's the guardian's aggregate: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-polling
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
  • Options
    kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    what polls are out this weekend?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    edited April 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    On that LD Wales & SW subsample...

    They got 30% last time. My modelling had them on 13.5% (even that was only enough to save Yeovil, Brecon, Thornbury, Ceredigion & Bristol West).

    The most recent subsamples from Populus are

    9% - 6% - 10% - 11% - 14% - 11%

    Looks like rcs may be calling this correctly...

    Back them in Bristol West at your own risk I reckon.
    No chance in bristol west. Anecdotally I know but the former LDs I know there are going back to Blair free Labour or the strong green candidate.

    I had all the others in my prediction as staying with LDs but I live in Thornbury and Yate and we have been bombarded by leaflets from the Tory over the last twelve months. Steve Webb the lib dem is very highly thought of locally from the people I have spoken to and should get back in.
    I've backed Labour and a smidgen of Green there, mainly Labour though. The Yougov demographics of the seat look incredibly left wing... it is probably a seat the SNP could hose up in tbh !

    Bristol West strikes me as the one seat where Labour could benefit from piss poor student registration actually.
  • Options
    kjohnw said:

    what polls are out this weekend?

    3 YouGovs, One Opinium, I'm hopeful we'll see the ComRes online poll tomorrow night, and the ComRes phone poll on Sunday.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    SeanT said:

    It's just occurred to me that the Lib Dems are now almost guaranteed to come FOURTH in the GE (in terms of seats) - behind the Nats.

    This will be their worst performance in modern parliamentary democracy. Indeed the first time ever they have come fourth, since the time of Pitt the Younger. Or Older.



    The 10-1 I took with Coral on SNP vs Lib Dem is actually looking like a poor price tbh ;)
  • Options
    GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    TGOHF said:

    Anyone able to quote the poll of polls 3 weeks out from 2010 and the eventual result ? What deviations are possible ?

    At this stage in 2010 we were amidst the Cleggasm. This is how YouGov looked...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Sean_F said:

    Millsy said:

    A 4.5% swing across England is pretty meaningless in terms of seats if it's because of Labour picking up excess LD votes and the Tories losing votes to Ukip in safe seats.

    For example, in the north east there is a lump of 24% that voted LD but they only have 2 seats up there. Imagine Labour getting most of the votes and maybe one of the seats. The same thing can happen in the west midlands where the Lib Dems got 21% and 2 seats, and the east midlands where they got 21% and ZERO seats, and Yorkshire where they got 23% and 3 seats. Labour could pick up all the votes and seats in these areas, which would add circa 9% to their national vote tally and only 7 seats.

    Under UNS, Labour would gain 54 seats from the Conservatives, and 11 from the Lib Dems. The Conservatives would gain 17 from the Lib Dems.

    We can assume that incumbents will outperform these figures, however.
    Does not Millsy have a point?

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/12/01/uniform-swing-rip/
    ''Uniform swing is now worse than useless – it is positively misleading''

    According to the (admittedly desperate) LD Voice, the Tories -
    over performed UNS in 2010
    over performed in 2005
    under performed in 2001
    and
    massively under performed in 1997.
    http://www.libdemvoice.org/uniform-national-swing-2010-19644.html
    In 2010 they got 14 more seats than UNS (despite some calling the campaign and Cameron rubbish).
    Looking at being optimistic then on the same %age of over performance in seats as 2005 that would be about +18ish seats to be added back to the projected loss.
    I'm sure the stats and manipulation of mine is quite useless but if you are betting I thought I would try to confuse you... :-)

    BTW
    the once heavily discussed 'unwinding' of the '97 anti tory LD vote does not get a mention these days. Is it still there??
    In 1997 they got over 60% more seats than UNS suggested.

  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    Indeed. Much as I hate Labour this is the best policy any party has come up with in this election, in terms of being obvious, fresh, intriguing, easy to enforce, and a good thing.

    In which case, why the F didn't the Tories do it? it would have done wonders for their image - pro-mobility, anti-posh, etc.

    Lack of brains and original thinking at Tory HQ.
    What should be the minimum wage of an unpaid intern then?
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,040
    TGOHF said:

    Anyone able to quote the poll of polls 3 weeks out from 2010 and the eventual result ? What deviations are possible ?

    Seconded. It would be really good to see the polls from the various companies 20 days or so out? Which one was the closest to the actual result?
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    chestnut said:

    Latest YG implies that the Lib Dems will get just 90,000 votes in the whole of Wales.

    I am almost certain they will get more than that. It would be in the realms of total wipe out if that is true.
    The last two Wales YG have 6%, while the January ICM had 7%.

    The Mid and West Wales LD subsample has been 12-14% recently.

    That's about 40,000 votes spread across 8 seats incl, 2 LD holds (Brecon/Ceredigion)

    Those two LD defences got 38,000 alone in 2010, and there were nearly 13,000 in Montgomeryshire. The total vote was c.75,000 across the eight seats in 2010.





  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,016
    I've just realised I used to live on Finborough Road exactly twenty years ago ...
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited April 2015
    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
  • Options
    stodge said:

    First?

    Edit: I hope everyone enjoys themselves on what promises to be a rather interesting and unpredictable election night.

    Hang on - if you're predicting it's going to be unpredictable that is, I would argue, predictable. Indeed, the one predictable thing about the election is its unpredictability so the predictable unpredictability of the election becomes in itself predictable.



    Are you Sir Bernard Woolley in disguise?
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    kjohnw said:

    what polls are out this weekend?

    3 YouGovs, One Opinium, I'm hopeful we'll see the ComRes online poll tomorrow night, and the ComRes phone poll on Sunday.
    Oh for the Halcyon Days of just Harris and Gallup.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited April 2015
    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?

    It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    Indeed. Much as I hate Labour this is the best policy any party has come up with in this election, in terms of being obvious, fresh, intriguing, easy to enforce, and a good thing.

    In which case, why the F didn't the Tories do it? it would have done wonders for their image - pro-mobility, anti-posh, etc.

    Lack of brains and original thinking at Tory HQ.
    I really hope they don't come out an oppose this. It would just reinforce their "party of the rich" image.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    Indeed. Much as I hate Labour this is the best policy any party has come up with in this election, in terms of being obvious, fresh, intriguing, easy to enforce, and a good thing.

    In which case, why the F didn't the Tories do it? it would have done wonders for their image - pro-mobility, anti-posh, etc.

    Lack of brains and original thinking at Tory HQ.
    What should be the minimum wage of an unpaid intern then?
    £5.30 per hour, have the government subsidise interns from low income/wealth backgrounds. That's about £9.6k per intern. Not exactly the end of the world.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    :heart:

    stodge said:

    First?

    Edit: I hope everyone enjoys themselves on what promises to be a rather interesting and unpredictable election night.

    Hang on - if you're predicting it's going to be unpredictable that is, I would argue, predictable. Indeed, the one predictable thing about the election is its unpredictability so the predictable unpredictability of the election becomes in itself predictable.



    Are you Sir Bernard Woolley in disguise?
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    edited April 2015

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector etc....y.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    It's disturbing that MaxPB - decent fellow though I am sure he is - can think this is a good policy when in reality it is just cheap politics.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    MaxPB said:

    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    Indeed. Much as I hate Labour this is the best policy any party has come up with in this election, in terms of being obvious, fresh, intriguing, easy to enforce, and a good thing.

    In which case, why the F didn't the Tories do it? it would have done wonders for their image - pro-mobility, anti-posh, etc.

    Lack of brains and original thinking at Tory HQ.
    What should be the minimum wage of an unpaid intern then?
    £5.30 per hour, have the government subsidise interns from low income/wealth backgrounds. That's about £9.6k per intern. Not exactly the end of the world.
    I've just realised.

    As well as the "posh kid" now earning a basic wage, they will be eligible for Tax Credits and Housing Benefit (assuming Daddy has sensibly placed the property bought for Junior/Princess into being held in a shell company).

    Nice wealth transfer for Labour to the privileged. Par for the course.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. Genius.
    No, they won't. Speaking purely in terms of journalism I know that editors loathe the useless entitled poshos they get lumbered with, thanks to the system of internships, but economically they are hard to resist.

    So make them economically very resistible, by disallowing them, and you will soon see some more working class kids come through.

    It's a good thing. Fuck the haute bourgeois carefully guiding their little ones into cushy jobs. Make them compete.
    Is this an ironic post, Mr Pot?
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,819
    edited April 2015
    chestnut said:

    Students in sample 197 (weight down to 160)
    Full Time Workers 824 (weight up to to 901)
    Private/HA rentals 481 (weight down to 400)
    Council rentals 118 (weight up to 287)

    Lot of adjusting going on.

    Don't you think this constant wading through polls looking for adjustments and weighting changes is kind of desperate?

  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited April 2015
    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. Genius.
    No, they won't. Speaking purely in terms of journalism I know that editors loathe the useless entitled poshos they get lumbered with, thanks to the system of internships, but economically they are hard to resist.

    So make them economically very resistible, by disallowing them, and you will soon see some more working class kids come through.

    It's a good thing. Fuck the haute bourgeois carefully guiding their little ones into cushy jobs. Make them compete.
    As has been pointed out down thread the bigger problem is nepotism. Banning people from giving internships to the children of people you know would be an interesting law to police, though it wouldn't go down very well with the various family dynasties infesting the Labour party.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,311
    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. Genius.
    No, they won't. Speaking purely in terms of journalism I know that editors loathe the useless entitled poshos they get lumbered with, thanks to the system of internships, but economically they are hard to resist.

    So make them economically very resistible, by disallowing them, and you will soon see some more working class kids come through.

    It's a good thing. Fuck the haute bourgeois carefully guiding their little ones into cushy jobs. Make them compete.
    The haute bourgeoisie get the cushy jobs anyway. Well at least they do at the Guardian.
  • Options
    llefllef Posts: 298
    chestnut said:

    Latest YG implies that the Lib Dems will get just 90,000 votes in the whole of Wales.

    hello, (first post from a lurker),

    re the above, looking at the ITV/YG poll welsh poll, the mid and west wales sub-samples nos for both the Libs and Plaid are pretty poor given that these are heartland areas for both parties (I know caveats apply to sub-samples..)

    Assuming they cover montgomery, brecon, ceredigion, pembroke, 2 carmarthen and llanelli seats then relative figs are:

    Party,2010,poll
    Cons,30,28
    Libs,26,14
    Labour,23,29
    Plaid,18,14
    UKIP,3,11

    I think
    libs wil just hold ceredigion (as the any one but Plaid vote will coalesce around them), but Brecon looks likley to go tory
    Labour in Llanelli at 1/8 looks nailed on
    both Carmarthen seats could be in play?

    cheers





  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector etc....y.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    It's disturbing that MaxPB - decent fellow though I am sure he is - can think this is a good policy when in reality it is just cheap politics.
    It's good politics AND a good policy.

    In case you haven't noticed, social mobility has declined in the last 20 years; rather importantly, it has declined most of all in the jobs where it really matters for the future - media, politics, etc

    Part of the reason for this is the loathsome idea of internships. It just means rich kids get a head start.

    How can anyone reasonably think this is a good idea? It is not a good idea. Labour have at least had the good sense to address the issue, even if the policy will need some refinement when it is enacted (as happened with other good ideas, like privatisation and right to buy).

    The Tories have done zip. The Tories have no bright ideas. It is quite depressing.

    The Tories are very clear about where they stand on internships:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356469/Cash-internships-Tory-backers-pay-2k-time-buy-children-work-experience.html


  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Welcome!
    llef said:

    chestnut said:

    Latest YG implies that the Lib Dems will get just 90,000 votes in the whole of Wales.

    hello, (first post from a lurker),

    re the above, looking at the ITV/YG poll welsh poll, the mid and west wales sub-samples nos for both the Libs and Plaid are pretty poor given that these are heartland areas for both parties (I know caveats apply to sub-samples..)

    Assuming they cover montgomery, brecon, ceredigion, pembroke, 2 carmarthen and llanelli seats then relative figs are:

    Party,2010,poll
    Cons,30,28
    Libs,26,14
    Labour,23,29
    Plaid,18,14
    UKIP,3,11

    I think
    libs wil just hold ceredigion (as the any one but Plaid vote will coalesce around them), but Brecon looks likley to go tory
    Labour in Llanelli at 1/8 looks nailed on
    both Carmarthen seats could be in play?

    cheers





  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,016
    Unpaid internships seems a world away from the companies I have worked for. As far as I'm aware none of them have done it, at least whilst I have been with them. They had lots of summer placements or mid-course gap-year students, but they were all paid the going rate - sometimes at graduate engineer pay levels.

    Unpaid internships seem madness. It's the right thing to do. Although the law would have to be well written to prevent further abuses.
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.
    Working class kids will have no better chance than they do now.

    Those businesses with no interest in 'Class' and family wealth will continue to give opportunities to those children from less well off backgrounds, providing they can afford to pay interns, whilst the remainder will carry on as normal or simply not bother at all.

    (Didn't you land your City job through a family connection BTW?)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Listened to Populus on World at one - they've ran "hundreds of thousands" of simulations.

    40% probability Labour propped up by SNP as next Gov't.
    30% probability Con largest party, Ed PM
    80% probability Ed PM

    According to them.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    Anyone able to quote the poll of polls 3 weeks out from 2010 and the eventual result ? What deviations are possible ?

    Here's the guardian's aggregate: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-polling
    THANKS !

    They had p.o.p. / final (deviation)

    Labour 26.9 / 29% / +2.1
    Con 32.5 / 36.1/ +3.6
    LD 30.4 / 23 / -8.4

    DYOC

  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    Pulpstar said:

    On that LD Wales & SW subsample...

    They got 30% last time. My modelling had them on 13.5% (even that was only enough to save Yeovil, Brecon, Thornbury, Ceredigion & Bristol West).

    The most recent subsamples from Populus are

    9% - 6% - 10% - 11% - 14% - 11%

    Looks like rcs may be calling this correctly...

    Back them in Bristol West at your own risk I reckon.
    No chance in bristol west. Anecdotally I know but the former LDs I know there are going back to Blair free Labour or the strong green candidate.

    I had all the others in my prediction as staying with LDs but I live in Thornbury and Yate and we have been bombarded by leaflets from the Tory over the last twelve months. Steve Webb the lib dem is very highly thought of locally from the people I have spoken to and should get back in.
    "I had all the others in my prediction as staying with LDs" - which seats are these, please?
    Yeovil, Thornbury, Brecon and Ceredigion. I had a laptop crash so I cannot recall all seats precisely but I only had them at around 13 seats nationally.
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. Genius.
    No, they won't. Speaking purely in terms of journalism I know that editors loathe the useless entitled poshos they get lumbered with, thanks to the system of internships, but economically they are hard to resist.

    So make them economically very resistible, by disallowing them, and you will soon see some more working class kids come through.

    It's a good thing. Fuck the haute bourgeois carefully guiding their little ones into cushy jobs. Make them compete.
    The haute bourgeoisie get the cushy jobs anyway. Well at least they do at the Guardian.
    At The Grauniad children use their mothers maiden names to disguise their relationships to other key members of staff.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.
    Working class kids will have no better chance than they do now.

    Those businesses with no interest in 'Class' and family wealth will continue to give opportunities to those children from less well off backgrounds, providing they can afford to pay interns, whilst the remainder will carry on as normal or simply not bother at all.

    (Didn't you land your City job through a family connection BTW?)
    It seems with both supporters of this policy we have cases of pulling the ladder up behind them.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    It should be noted that whilst Fisher has PM Ed at 50%, his EdMPM - Con largest party gap is 26%.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,755
    Nicola Sturgeon coming across as a bit desperate to get a deal with Ed on newstime clips.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,205
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. Genius.
    No, they won't. Speaking purely in terms of journalism I know that editors loathe the useless entitled poshos they get lumbered with, thanks to the system of internships, but economically they are hard to resist.

    So make them economically very resistible, by disallowing them, and you will soon see some more working class kids come through.

    It's a good thing. Fuck the haute bourgeois carefully guiding their little ones into cushy jobs. Make them compete.
    The haute bourgeoisie get the cushy jobs anyway. Well at least they do at the Guardian.
    My son has written various articles and reviews (art exhibitions, films, plays) for online publications - for free. He would like to do more. He would even like to be paid, eventually.

    I know no-one at the Guardian. Or at any other newspaper, come to that.

    Will this proposal help or hinder him?

    It's a start but unscrambling a cosy nepotistic world is going to take more than this.

    I would be even more impressed if Milliband were to annouce today that:-

    (a) no Labour MP will have anyone working for them on a zero hours contract;
    (b) all applications to work with them or the Labour party or any of their associated think tanks will be advertised openly in a rage of publications (not just the Guardian);
    (c) all those who know or have any sort of personal or professional relationship with past or present MPs will need to declare this in advance; and
    (d) there will be an annual published report of all those working for the Labour party, how many applications there were and how many of those who applied declared an interest under (c).

    Then we could see whether they really mean what they say.

  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.
    Working class kids will have no better chance than they do now.

    Those businesses with no interest in 'Class' and family wealth will continue to give opportunities to those children from less well off backgrounds, providing they can afford to pay interns, whilst the remainder will carry on as normal or simply not bother at all.

    (Didn't you land your City job through a family connection BTW?)
    If they were all forced to pay interns then everyone gets an equal chance. £9k a year might not be a lot but it would be enough to live on for a year even in London in a shared house living cheap.

    Yeah, I got lucky. My parents were hosting a party and I impressed one of my dad's old friends with a neat bit of prediction. It is sad that I would not be in the industry without that because I obviously have the skills to be an analyst, I have proven it time and again at work, but without that connection I would still be in the wrong job. Most people don't have that opening and by shutting off internships to families that have money more people would not get that opening.

    Yes I'm sure some middle class kids would benefit where they wouldn't previously, but if that is the price of making sure the industry is open to everyone then so be it.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    Pulpstar said:

    On that LD Wales & SW subsample...

    They got 30% last time. My modelling had them on 13.5% (even that was only enough to save Yeovil, Brecon, Thornbury, Ceredigion & Bristol West).

    The most recent subsamples from Populus are

    9% - 6% - 10% - 11% - 14% - 11%

    Looks like rcs may be calling this correctly...

    Back them in Bristol West at your own risk I reckon.
    No chance in bristol west. Anecdotally I know but the former LDs I know there are going back to Blair free Labour or the strong green candidate.

    I had all the others in my prediction as staying with LDs but I live in Thornbury and Yate and we have been bombarded by leaflets from the Tory over the last twelve months. Steve Webb the lib dem is very highly thought of locally from the people I have spoken to and should get back in.
    "I had all the others in my prediction as staying with LDs" - which seats are these, please?
    Yeovil, Thornbury, Brecon and Ceredigion. I had a laptop crash so I cannot recall all seats precisely but I only had them at around 13 seats nationally.
    Thanks. I'm currently at 20, but I've still got them recovering to 10.2% as well.
  • Options
    SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    Ed just said Cameron hasn't got the guts to debate him.
    That's gotta hurt.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,353
    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. Genius.
    No, they won't. Speaking purely in terms of journalism I know that editors loathe the useless entitled poshos they get lumbered with, thanks to the system of internships, but economically they are hard to resist.

    So make them economically very resistible, by disallowing them, and you will soon see some more working class kids come through.

    It's a good thing. Fuck the haute bourgeois carefully guiding their little ones into cushy jobs. Make them compete.
    It's actually precisely how Cameron got his job.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,205
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.
    It's not just about class. It's about those who are on the inside and those on the outside. Too many of us feel on the outside and, frankly, that neither of the two main parties are on our side. I certainly feel that.

  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector etc....y.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    It's disturbing that MaxPB - decent fellow though I am sure he is - can think this is a good policy when in reality it is just cheap politics.
    It's good politics AND a good policy.

    In case you haven't noticed, social mobility has declined in the last 20 years; rather importantly, it has declined most of all in the jobs where it really matters for the future - media, politics, etc

    Part of the reason for this is the loathsome idea of internships. It just means rich kids get a head start.

    How can anyone reasonably think this is a good idea? It is not a good idea. Labour have at least had the good sense to address the issue, even if the policy will need some refinement when it is enacted (as happened with other good ideas, like privatisation and right to buy).

    The Tories have done zip. The Tories have no bright ideas. It is quite depressing.
    The idea that rich kids won't get a head start is nonsense. In my previous job all the banter was around rugby union, which all the rich kids with private education had played, therefore everyone had significant connections. I was a bit left out being a rugby league man but my personality meant I didn't let myself be left out.

    All society works in this way, it is always who you know even in things like the unions, charities and the Labour party. They are all stuffed with a left wing elite with a few usurpers.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    @SeanT @MaxPB


    So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?

    You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.

  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited April 2015
    The Political Studies Association have uploaded videos of their recent event.

    www.youtube.com/user/polstudiesassoc1/videos
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Pulpstar said:

    Listened to Populus on World at one - they've ran "hundreds of thousands" of simulations.

    40% probability Labour propped up by SNP as next Gov't.
    30% probability Con largest party, Ed PM
    80% probability Ed PM

    According to them.

    Labour! Labour! Labour!
    In! In! In!

    It makes you wonder why they bother polling....
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,979
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.
    Working class kids will have no better chance than they do now.

    Those businesses with no interest in 'Class' and family wealth will continue to give opportunities to those children from less well off backgrounds, providing they can afford to pay interns, whilst the remainder will carry on as normal or simply not bother at all.

    (Didn't you land your City job through a family connection BTW?)
    If they were all forced to pay interns then everyone gets an equal chance. £9k a year might not be a lot but it would be enough to live on for a year even in London in a shared house living cheap.

    Yeah, I got lucky. My parents were hosting a party and I impressed one of my dad's old friends with a neat bit of prediction. It is sad that I would not be in the industry without that because I obviously have the skills to be an analyst, I have proven it time and again at work, but without that connection I would still be in the wrong job. Most people don't have that opening and by shutting off internships to families that have money more people would not get that opening.

    Yes I'm sure some middle class kids would benefit where they wouldn't previously, but if that is the price of making sure the industry is open to everyone then so be it.
    LOL you could not beat the Tories with a stick
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092



    The idea that rich kids won't get a head start is nonsense. In my previous job all the banter was around rugby union, which all the rich kids with private education had played, therefore everyone had significant connections. I was a bit left out being a rugby league man but my personality meant I didn't let myself be left out.

    All society works in this way, it is always who you know even in things like the unions, charities and the Labour party. They are all stuffed with a left wing elite with a few usurpers.

    But if there's a policy that can at least partially redress this without causing significant harm (and I've yet to see any credible argument it would do this), isn't that better than nothing?
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,205
    edited April 2015
    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.

    It should have been a Tory idea. That's what truly worries me. It is classically Thatcherite.
    Yes it is. Let's see if the Labour party start by applying to themselves. Nothing to stop them doing it right now.

    Otherwise, much as I like the idea as an attempt to deal with a real issue, it will be another case of "Do what I say, not what I do".



  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,755
    SMukesh said:

    Ed just said Cameron hasn't got the guts to debate him.
    That's gotta hurt.

    which one ?

  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607


    @SeanT @MaxPB


    So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?

    You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.

    Banks wouldn't have "volunteers". The bad press wouldn't justify it. Charities already do it anyway, but they are charities. Profit-seeking companies would either get rid of internships or just pay people, I highly doubt they would go down the "volunteer" route, they would just get shat on by the press. "Billion pound companies ask for volunteers" is not a good way of doing business.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,979
    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.
    It's not just about class. It's about those who are on the inside and those on the outside. Too many of us feel on the outside and, frankly, that neither of the two main parties are on our side. I certainly feel that.

    Max would have us eat cake. He is happy if a few token peasants are employed to show how fair the system is , gives him and his chums someone to mock and poke fun at.
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    llef said:

    hello, (first post from a lurker),

    re the above, looking at the ITV/YG poll welsh poll, the mid and west wales sub-samples nos for both the Libs and Plaid are pretty poor given that these are heartland areas for both parties (I know caveats apply to sub-samples..)

    Assuming they cover montgomery, brecon, ceredigion, pembroke, 2 carmarthen and llanelli seats then relative figs are:

    Party,2010,poll
    Cons,30,28
    Libs,26,14
    Labour,23,29
    Plaid,18,14
    UKIP,3,11

    I think
    libs wil just hold ceredigion (as the any one but Plaid vote will coalesce around them), but Brecon looks likley to go tory
    Labour in Llanelli at 1/8 looks nailed on
    both Carmarthen seats could be in play?

    cheers

    Welcome.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,979

    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. Genius.
    No, they won't. Speaking purely in terms of journalism I know that editors loathe the useless entitled poshos they get lumbered with, thanks to the system of internships, but economically they are hard to resist.

    So make them economically very resistible, by disallowing them, and you will soon see some more working class kids come through.

    It's a good thing. Fuck the haute bourgeois carefully guiding their little ones into cushy jobs. Make them compete.
    It's actually precisely how Cameron got his job.
    It is exactly how all these toffs get their jobs, it is incestuous and they plan to keep it that way for sure.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,353
    Off topic, I do love the tribalism of the MSM newspapers. Just went to Waitrose for lunch.

    Telegraph: Sturgeon Offer to Miliband: I'll make you PM
    Times: Join me or you'll pay, Sturgeon tells Labour
    Guardian: Miliband tells Sturgeon: I won't do a deal with you
    Mirror: Tories too Right Wing to win
    Daily Mail (inside): Red Ed would put a million back on dole, says Cameron
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited April 2015
    Dair said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.
    Working class kids will have no better chance than they do now.

    Those businesses with no interest in 'Class' and family wealth will continue to give opportunities to those children from less well off backgrounds, providing they can afford to pay interns, whilst the remainder will carry on as normal or simply not bother at all.

    (Didn't you land your City job through a family connection BTW?)
    It seems with both supporters of this policy we have cases of pulling the ladder up behind them.
    The surname 'Milliband' must have opened a few doors in the Labour Party. It's all ridiculous.
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    MaxPB said:


    @SeanT @MaxPB


    So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?

    You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.

    Banks wouldn't have "volunteers". The bad press wouldn't justify it. Charities already do it anyway, but they are charities. Profit-seeking companies would either get rid of internships or just pay people, I highly doubt they would go down the "volunteer" route, they would just get shat on by the press. "Billion pound companies ask for volunteers" is not a good way of doing business.
    Surely we must already have the legal framework in place to distinguish unpaid work from volunteering? Otherwise somebody could be paid half minimum wage by having half their time be described as "volunteering"
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    Sean_F said:

    Millsy said:

    A 4.5% swing across England is pretty meaningless in terms of seats if it's because of Labour picking up excess LD votes and the Tories losing votes to Ukip in safe seats.

    For example, in the north east there is a lump of 24% that voted LD but they only have 2 seats up there. Imagine Labour getting most of the votes and maybe one of the seats. The same thing can happen in the west midlands where the Lib Dems got 21% and 2 seats, and the east midlands where they got 21% and ZERO seats, and Yorkshire where they got 23% and 3 seats. Labour could pick up all the votes and seats in these areas, which would add circa 9% to their national vote tally and only 7 seats.

    Under UNS, Labour would gain 54 seats from the Conservatives, and 11 from the Lib Dems. The Conservatives would gain 17 from the Lib Dems.

    We can assume that incumbents will outperform these figures, however.
    Looks like it'll be between 25-40 Lab gains from the Tories atm and for the Tories to gain 9-14 from the LDs.
    Current Ashcroft polling suggests a swing of 3-3.5% to Labour, in Conservative-held marginal seats. That would save the Conservatives about 15 seats, over and above UNS, if it occurred on the day.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector etc....y.

    The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
    It's disturbing that MaxPB - decent fellow though I am sure he is - can think this is a good policy when in reality it is just cheap politics.
    It's good politics AND a good policy.

    In case you haven't noticed, social mobility has declined in the last 20 years; rather importantly, it has declined most of all in the jobs where it really matters for the future - media, politics, etc

    Part of the reason for this is the loathsome idea of internships. It just means rich kids get a head start.

    How can anyone reasonably think this is a good idea? It is not a good idea. Labour have at least had the good sense to address the issue, even if the policy will need some refinement when it is enacted (as happened with other good ideas, like privatisation and right to buy).

    The Tories have done zip. The Tories have no bright ideas. It is quite depressing.

    The Tories are very clear about where they stand on internships:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356469/Cash-internships-Tory-backers-pay-2k-time-buy-children-work-experience.html


    I instinctively revolt at the idea of agreeing with you, but yes, that article skewers a key Tory problem: the perception they are in it for themselves and their rich friends is not without merit.

    Thatcher would have eagerly banned internships, as they corrupt the market in favour of the rich. Like wealthy families buying commissions in the army and navy of old. Internships are anti-meritocratic. They are old boys networks made visible.

    Yet too many modern Cameroon Tories are quite OK with them. Ugh.


    It should have been a Tory policy in their manifesto. Labour pulled the ladder up behind them, the Tories are pushing it back down so ordinary people can climb up again.

    The current Tory party just doesn't think like that because it is infected with people who never had to do the hard yards. That is why I hope Sajid Javid gets in as leader, he seems to know where it is at.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,755
    MaxPB said:


    @SeanT @MaxPB


    So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?

    You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.

    Banks wouldn't have "volunteers". The bad press wouldn't justify it. Charities already do it anyway, but they are charities. Profit-seeking companies would either get rid of internships or just pay people, I highly doubt they would go down the "volunteer" route, they would just get shat on by the press. "Billion pound companies ask for volunteers" is not a good way of doing business.
    otoh how do work placements\experience fit in all of this.

    My kids schools were always keen for students to do a week or a fortnight working in a company. It was a total hassle to get them placed. If you're now asking they get paid on top for work experience it will work against the schools.
This discussion has been closed.