... but it was only in the last ten years of that period that they really intervened (and by then ... )
I know "first half" covers a multitude of sins, but would you argue with, say the first third?
Well, their rise was unprecedented and they were finding their feet as a global actor. If they'd acted differently in WW1 maybe the rise of communism and fascism could have been prevented.
... but it was only in the last ten years of that period that they really intervened (and by then ... )
I know "first half" covers a multitude of sins, but would you argue with, say the first third?
Well, their rise was unprecedented and they were finding their feet as a global actor. If they'd acted differently in WW1 maybe the rise of communism and fascism could have been prevented.
German Police:" Video on his phone shows him pledging allegiance to ISIS"
The authorities can only do this so often. They are probably in the last chance saloon already even with the Teutonic mind of total acceptance of any authority or officialdom.
Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.
I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
Trump seems good at raising turnout. I can see him getting blue collars to the voting booths who haven't voted for a long time.
Don't forget in many US states it can be quite hard to register to vote - ironically mostly due to Republican attempts to disenfranchise poor voters assumed to lean Democrat.
Define quite hard. It most states, you can register on line, at government offices, at food stamp offices and at military offices. Levels of proof vary from a simply signature declaring the statements made on the registration form as true, to requiring either photo ID or birth certificate.
If you have only very marginal interest in voting, I can see these as being viewed as unsurmountable obstacles to registration. But for anyone with a sense of civic duty, hardly 'very hard'.
Wikipedia has a handy list of (mostly) Republican voter suppression activities in the US.
You did see the big warning at the top of that page saying "The neutrality of this article is disputed"
Do you consider the requirement for registration to vote in the UK that you provide a valid NI number or, failing that, be prepared to offer other proof of identity, to be voter suppression?
That's fascinating. My biggest misjudgement on the Referendum was not getting " Take back Control " which I thought was a bonkers slogan. I thought voters were more focused than ever at the bottom of Maslow's Heirarchy. As ' Control ' is an abstract I assumed that Remain's focus on security and wealth would scrape through. But reading the post mortems it seems for too many people control is at the bottom of Maslow. It's the lack of ' Control ' that they blame for the needs at the bottom of the Heirarchy not being met.
Though your formulation is another fascinating possibility.
Actually, the Control issue might be seen as an Esteem issue. Maybe that is the level the UK electorate is at.
That's fascinating. I suppose your thesis belies another one of my unfounded assumptions. That the campaigns were pitched at, and voters had to be at either of , the extremes of Maslow's Heirarchy. Maybe it was more complex and nuanced than that all along so the centrist ' Take back Control = Esteem " won in the end.
... but it was only in the last ten years of that period that they really intervened (and by then ... )
I know "first half" covers a multitude of sins, but would you argue with, say the first third?
Well, their rise was unprecedented and they were finding their feet as a global actor. If they'd acted differently in WW1 maybe the rise of communism and fascism could have been prevented.
That's not quite what I asked.
My point was that you can't look back to a previous period of engagement that they withdrew from as if they non-interventionism outside their hemisphere was a novelty which created a vacuum. They could have used their new power better but didn't.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.
But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.
The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
That's a very astute observation. Remain were fighting the campaign with the tactics of the pre-2008 era, assuming economics trumped all else.
My view: economics does trump all. The last 25 years - in the eyes of the median person - has seen no material improvement at all. None. People feel that things can't get any worse. They didn't see any recovery. They see job insecurity and stagnant wages and rising house prices and immigrants.
Fear only works if people believe things could get worse.
That's fascinating. My biggest misjudgement on the Referendum was not getting " Take back Control " which I thought was a bonkers slogan. I thought voters were more focused than ever at the bottom of Maslow's Heirarchy. As ' Control ' is an abstract I assumed that Remain's focus on security and wealth would scrape through. But reading the post mortems it seems for too many people control is at the bottom of Maslow. It's the lack of ' Control ' that they blame for the needs at the bottom of the Heirarchy not being met.
Though your formulation is another fascinating possibility.
Actually, the Control issue might be seen as an Esteem issue. Maybe that is the level the UK electorate is at.
And your theory would explain why such demographically similar areas in Scotland and England voted such different ways. Because the SNP/YES phenomenon had already cornered and met the need for " Esteem " so Brexit could be judged by a different prism ? Fascinating.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.
But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.
The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
That's a very astute observation. Remain were fighting the campaign with the tactics of the pre-2008 era, assuming economics trumped all else.
My view: economics does trump all. The last 25 years - in the eyes of the median person - has seen no material improvement at all. None. People feel that things can't get any worse. They didn't see any recovery. They see job insecurity and stagnant wages and rising house prices and immigrants.
Fear only works if people believe things could get worse.
That's fascinating. My biggest misjudgement on the Referendum was not getting " Take back Control " which I thought was a bonkers slogan. I thought voters were more focused than ever at the bottom of Maslow's Heirarchy. As ' Control ' is an abstract I assumed that Remain's focus on security and wealth would scrape through. But reading the post mortems it seems for too many people control is at the bottom of Maslow. It's the lack of ' Control ' that they blame for the needs at the bottom of the Heirarchy not being met.
Though your formulation is another fascinating possibility.
Actually, the Control issue might be seen as an Esteem issue. Maybe that is the level the UK electorate is at.
Actually the more I think about it the more I like your theory. Who cares if it's correct. Let's commission Populus to do polling to substantiate it regardless.
That's fascinating. My biggest misjudgement on the Referendum was not getting " Take back Control " which I thought was a bonkers slogan. I thought voters were more focused than ever at the bottom of Maslow's Heirarchy. As ' Control ' is an abstract I assumed that Remain's focus on security and wealth would scrape through. But reading the post mortems it seems for too many people control is at the bottom of Maslow. It's the lack of ' Control ' that they blame for the needs at the bottom of the Heirarchy not being met.
Though your formulation is another fascinating possibility.
Actually, the Control issue might be seen as an Esteem issue. Maybe that is the level the UK electorate is at.
That's fascinating. I suppose your thesis belies another one of my unfounded assumptions. That the campaigns were pitched at, and voters had to be at either of , the extremes of Maslow's Heirarchy. Maybe it was more complex and nuanced than that all along so the centrist ' Take back Control = Esteem " won in the end.
I think that might be it. It explains why Cameron trying to claim he won a good deal for the UK and the march of experts both backfired so badly (insults to our collective intelligence), and why an acknowledged economic hit of some size was discounted so heavily (we'll still be ok re physiological needs). Furthermore, the perceived slights of the UK by the EU over the years could be seen as attacks on the UK's esteem.
But, given that the campaign was successful pretty much everywhere in England outside London, perhaps more than one explanation is required for the success of Leave.
Fear only works if people believe things could get worse.
Do you really believe things can't get worse ?
The question isn't whether things can get worse or not, it's how credibly people perceive the risk. We had a financial crisis that was described with all imaginable hyperbole and the net result for most people was stagnation and a feeling that the system was rigged to ensure the people at the top didn't lose out for their own mistakes. It's not surprising that people no longer see fearmongering about economic armageddon in the same light.
My view: economics does trump all. The last 25 years - in the eyes of the median person - has seen no material improvement at all. None. People feel that things can't get any worse. They didn't see any recovery. They see job insecurity and stagnant wages and rising house prices and immigrants.
Fear only works if people believe things could get worse.
Do you really believe things can't get worse ?
Of course not. Things can get a lot worse. If the world - here and in the US - turns towards protectionism, then things could get a lot, lot worse.
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
That's a very astute observation. Remain were fighting the campaign with the tactics of the pre-2008 era, assuming economics trumped all else.
My view: economics does trump all. The last 25 years - in the eyes of the median person - has seen no material improvement at all. None. People feel that things can't get any worse. They didn't see any recovery. They see job insecurity and stagnant wages and rising house prices and immigrants.
Fear only works if people believe things could get worse.
At the risk of conveying Good Old Days syndrome, I was trained to do MBWA (management by wandering about).
Towards the end of my career, I noticed the rise of traffic light management, basically a high level dashboard for each area, coded red, amber, green. Of course, this meant that subordinates moved heaven and earth to ensure few ambers and no reds. At almost any cost.
We've been doing something like this for the economy. For all intents and purposes the UK's economic recovery has been achieved by importing people.
Our economy hasn't got better, it's just puffed up. But GDP: green. Same with employment. I did a quick breakdown a couple of days back. It's not necessarily as good as it looks. But top level: green.
If nothing else, EUref has encouraged us to start actually looking at our problems.
That's fascinating. My biggest misjudgement on the Referendum was not getting " Take back Control " which I thought was a bonkers slogan. I thought voters were more focused than ever at the bottom of Maslow's Heirarchy. As ' Control ' is an abstract I assumed that Remain's focus on security and wealth would scrape through. But reading the post mortems it seems for too many people control is at the bottom of Maslow. It's the lack of ' Control ' that they blame for the needs at the bottom of the Heirarchy not being met.
Though your formulation is another fascinating possibility.
Actually, the Control issue might be seen as an Esteem issue. Maybe that is the level the UK electorate is at.
Actually the more I think about it the more I like your theory. Who cares if it's correct. Let's commission Populus to do polling to substantiate it regardless.
@rcs1000 - I think that's true only up to a point. Most people aren't motivated solely by money (it would be a very hollow world if they were) and values, principles and emotions do play a strong part in politics.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
That's fascinating. My biggest misjudgement on the Referendum was not getting " Take back Control " which I thought was a bonkers slogan. I thought voters were more focused than ever at the bottom of Maslow's Heirarchy. As ' Control ' is an abstract I assumed that Remain's focus on security and wealth would scrape through. But reading the post mortems it seems for too many people control is at the bottom of Maslow. It's the lack of ' Control ' that they blame for the needs at the bottom of the Heirarchy not being met.
Though your formulation is another fascinating possibility.
Actually, the Control issue might be seen as an Esteem issue. Maybe that is the level the UK electorate is at.
And your theory would explain why such demographically similar areas in Scotland and England voted such different ways. Because the SNP/YES phenomenon had already cornered and met the need for " Esteem " so Brexit could be judged by a different prism ? Fascinating.
Westminster/UK is the bogeyman in Scotland substituting for Brussels/EU. They are both perceived to be artificial, remote and uncaring constructs.
"If you think you may be culturally compromised in 20-30 years time - in other words, you might move from a majority demographic group to a minority one, and are already witnessed what you feel are the effects of that - you might easily be willing to accept a 5% cut in your overall net worth if you feel that's the price of preventing that."
Given that the majority of the electorate have an overall net worth of bugger all it is not surprising that they would be prepared to take a cut in it of 5%. Cameron and Osborne lost because they did not understand that the great majority of people had rather different views of what was important to their own set.
That they only lost by a slender margin is something that future historians will argue about in years to come. I would only note that PB's own Tipster of the Year for Life (aka JackW) got the result totally and awfully wrong just illustrates how out of touch the Establishment (i.e. those that have) actually are.
Mr. 43, if there is a second Scottish referendum and they vote to Leave, I suspect the divorce will be far more acrimonious than it would've been in 2014.
It won't be a case of 'we dislike the UK' or even 'we like the UK and want to be friends but want to be separate'. It'll be seen, understandably as 'we prefer the EU to the UK'.
That's fascinating. My biggest misjudgement on the Referendum was not getting " Take back Control " which I thought was a bonkers slogan. I thought voters were more focused than ever at the bottom of Maslow's Heirarchy. As ' Control ' is an abstract I assumed that Remain's focus on security and wealth would scrape through. But reading the post mortems it seems for too many people control is at the bottom of Maslow. It's the lack of ' Control ' that they blame for the needs at the bottom of the Heirarchy not being met.
Though your formulation is another fascinating possibility.
Actually, the Control issue might be seen as an Esteem issue. Maybe that is the level the UK electorate is at.
And your theory would explain why such demographically similar areas in Scotland and England voted such different ways. Because the SNP/YES phenomenon had already cornered and met the need for " Esteem " so Brexit could be judged by a different prism ? Fascinating.
Westminster/UK is the bogeyman in Scotland substituting for Brussels/EU. They are both perceived to be artificial, remote and uncaring constructs.
And wonderfully blameworthy. 'That problem you have Mr Voter? Would love to help you but Mrs May/Herr Juncker won't let me.'
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
You keep asserting this 'lose the most'. In what way?
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
You keep asserting this 'lose the most'. In what way?
Yes, I have been constantly asserting that. And the flavour of thread is that assertion is wrong. By ' lose ' I mean a short term economic shock, medium term lower trend growth then long term a more globalised UK economy as the alternative economic model. Those voters will lose most under this for the same reason they've lost most since ( insert preferred date ). They are the least equipped to cope with globalisation , Brexit doesn't alter that, globalisation isn't going anywhere.
However as many are arguing here perhaps there is much more to " loss " than I think. Culture, self esteem, demographics etc.
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
You keep asserting this 'lose the most'. In what way?
Yes, I have been constantly asserting that. And the flavour of thread is that assertion is wrong. By ' lose ' I mean a short term economic shock, medium term lower trend growth then long term a more globalised UK economy as the alternative economic model. Those voters will lose most under this for the same reason they've lost most since ( insert preferred date ). They are the least equipped to cope with globalisation , Brexit doesn't alter that, globalisation isn't going anywhere.
However as many are arguing here perhaps there is much more to " loss " than I think. Culture, self esteem, demographics etc.
That's helpful. Thank you. I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I understand where you're coming from now.
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
You keep asserting this 'lose the most'. In what way?
And I'm quite sympathetic to your wider point by the way. Mass immigration is in part a form of deficit spending. But that's why I think the WWC who think they've voted against ' Social Austerity ' have in fact voted for more of it.
But in any case too many posts from me in this thread ! I must get back to my Kubler-Ross model. Apparently I'm stuck in it !
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
Both campaigns were utter shit. Remain had the £4,300, the punishment budget, 'Little Englanders' and 'Back of the queue'. Leave had £350 million, Turkey, 'breaking point' poster and no clue what Brexit actually meant.
Nobody comes out of it well. Apart from me, I'm lovely .
A confused post, for two reasons. Firstly there were two distinct Leave campaigns, of which one had the £350million (an accurate estimate in my book, but one they utterly failed to defend with any capability), and Turkey, and the other of which had the poster. Secondly, it's unclear whether you're speaking about effectiveness or ethical standards. I was talking about effectiveness, or lack of in the case of Vote Leave. Leave.EU was, for the most part, quite effective imo.
You are quite possibly the only person on this board who still believes that the £350 million figure (available for the NHS or otherwise) was anything other than the flat lie that it was.
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
You keep asserting this 'lose the most'. In what way?
Yes, I have been constantly asserting that. And the flavour of thread is that assertion is wrong. By ' lose ' I mean a short term economic shock, medium term lower trend growth then long term a more globalised UK economy as the alternative economic model. Those voters will lose most under this for the same reason they've lost most since ( insert preferred date ). They are the least equipped to cope with globalisation , Brexit doesn't alter that, globalisation isn't going anywhere.
However as many are arguing here perhaps there is much more to " loss " than I think. Culture, self esteem, demographics etc.
What do you mean "perhaps there is much more to loss"? Are you confessing to not have thought that for a lot of people the EU and the nation state meant more than money? Sheeeesh!
At the risk of conveying Good Old Days syndrome, I was trained to do MBWA (management by wandering about).
Towards the end of my career, I noticed the rise of traffic light management, basically a high level dashboard for each area, coded red, amber, green. Of course, this meant that subordinates moved heaven and earth to ensure few ambers and no reds. At almost any cost.
We've been doing something like this for the economy. For all intents and purposes the UK's economic recovery has been achieved by importing people.
Our economy hasn't got better, it's just puffed up. But GDP: green. Same with employment. I did a quick breakdown a couple of days back. It's not necessarily as good as it looks. But top level: green.
If nothing else, EUref has encouraged us to start actually looking at our problems.
As you say GDP is green if you don't look too closely at it. Employment is green if you don't look too closely at it.
The problem is that as soon as you look into it you really would be debating whether in reality it was Amber or Red........
The thing is that those things are Amber if you just look at the structural and technological changes that still need to progress through the system.... If red is bad, what is the equivalent of flashing red with the klaxon going while the rats are jumping overboard into the sea...
Sturgeon is setting out her aims with admirable clarity. What's you beef?
If you go through them, her aims can only be met by Scotland staying in the EU "as is".
She is therefore setting herself up to fail, and she knows it, whilst providing a marvellous pretext for a second referendum.
Good. I hope she gets her way and wins the second referendum.
I don't want Scotland to leave and the U.K. to be split up. But, I simply cannot see a way to politically reconcile the two anymore.
The challenge for rUK will be to preserve its global status and standing in the wake of a Scottish departure, and without compromising integrated defence of the island of GB.
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
You've got to laugh though.' Five tests ' to support a policy on Europe she's opposed to and that will clearly never be met. I wonder which other Scottish politician she could possibly have got that ruse from ! ?
Yes, I have been constantly asserting that. And the flavour of thread is that assertion is wrong. By ' lose ' I mean a short term economic shock, medium term lower trend growth then long term a more globalised UK economy as the alternative economic model. Those voters will lose most under this for the same reason they've lost most since ( insert preferred date ). They are the least equipped to cope with globalisation , Brexit doesn't alter that, globalisation isn't going anywhere.
However as many are arguing here perhaps there is much more to " loss " than I think. Culture, self esteem, demographics etc.
I am one of those little people as are most of my friends, when I was looking for work in 2002 the going rate for what I do was 38 to 42k. Today having been laid off (not due to brexit ) the going rate scanning the agency jobs is still 38k to 42k. In 2002 I could afford to buy a house, I could afford to visit bars and restaurants. I could afford to run a car and motorcycle. If I rented I could afford I nice place to live.
Now I watch as my friends who earn less reluctantly turn in their keys of rented flats and move back into shared accomodation. I watch them drive ever more tatty cars or give them up completely. Pay hasnt moved for most people in that time bar those on minimum wage and those in the public sector. I know of no one bar those two groups that have had a payrise that even matches the government defined rate of inflation. Those few that have seen anything in the nature of payrise.
A vote for the EU was a vote for more of the same, a slow sad decline into genteel poverty as our wages stayed flat lined while all around us increased in cost. Why vote for that at worst we just speed our decline, at best something might actually change.
At the risk of conveying Good Old Days syndrome, I was trained to do MBWA (management by wandering about).
Towards the end of my career, I noticed the rise of traffic light management, basically a high level dashboard for each area, coded red, amber, green. Of course, this meant that subordinates moved heaven and earth to ensure few ambers and no reds. At almost any cost.
We've been doing something like this for the economy. For all intents and purposes the UK's economic recovery has been achieved by importing people.
Our economy hasn't got better, it's just puffed up. But GDP: green. Same with employment. I did a quick breakdown a couple of days back. It's not necessarily as good as it looks. But top level: green.
If nothing else, EUref has encouraged us to start actually looking at our problems.
GDP is green if you don't look too closely at it. Employment is green if you don't look too closely at it.
The problem is that as soon as you look into it you really would be debating whether in reality it was Amber or Red........
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
You've got to laugh though.' Five tests ' to support a policy on Europe she's opposed to and that will clearly never be met. I wonder which other Scottish politician she could possibly have got that ruse from ! ?
And just like that other Scottish politician, they are a smokescreen. Only one test applies: can I win a referendum?
Corbyn has a higher satisfaction rating than Foot? That's a surprise.
But one can't compare the two because 1982 was POST-split, whereas 2016 is PRE-split, if indeed there is to be one.
Should SDP2 happen, that'll knock another half a dozen points off Corbyns ratings because there is always a tranch of hardcore supporters (say around 15-20% for each party) who grudgingly endorse the leader come what may and never say they're doing a bad job. I'm probably one of these very people within the Tory support base, come to think of it.
Just when you thought things could not get any worse for them it turns out that not only are they suing themselves in court but are also being sued by their members.
I know it's often said here but truly seriously, The Thick of it doesn't even come close to this....
Yes, I have been constantly asserting that. And the flavour of thread is that assertion is wrong. By ' lose ' I mean a short term economic shock, medium term lower trend growth then long term a more globalised UK economy as the alternative economic model. Those voters will lose most under this for the same reason they've lost most since ( insert preferred date ). They are the least equipped to cope with globalisation , Brexit doesn't alter that, globalisation isn't going anywhere.
However as many are arguing here perhaps there is much more to " loss " than I think. Culture, self esteem, demographics etc.
I am one of those little people as are most of my friends, when I was looking for work in 2002 the going rate for what I do was 38 to 42k. Today having been laid off (not due to brexit ) the going rate scanning the agency jobs is still 38k to 42k. In 2002 I could afford to buy a house, I could afford to visit bars and restaurants. I could afford to run a car and motorcycle. If I rented I could afford I nice place to live.
Now I watch as my friends who earn less reluctantly turn in their keys of rented flats and move back into shared accomodation. I watch them drive ever more tatty cars or give them up completely. Pay hasnt moved for most people in that time bar those on minimum wage and those in the public sector. I know of no one bar those two groups that have had a payrise that even matches the government defined rate of inflation. Those few that have seen anything in the nature of payrise.
A vote for the EU was a vote for more of the same, a slow sad decline into genteel poverty as our wages stayed flat lined while all around us increased in cost. Why vote for that at worst we just speed our decline, at best something might actually change.
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
They're a couple of years old, but median gross income for the top decile (single adult) is £60.5k. For a traditional family (2+2), it's £151.4k. Globally, you're in it whatever you make.
@rcs1000 - I think that's true only up to a point. Most people aren't motivated solely by money (it would be a very hollow world if they were) and values, principles and emotions do play a strong part in politics.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
Did you read my piece The Discontented? I really think the rise of insurgent political movements is because median real wages have gone backwards everywhere. Essentially, the 1% (me, and people like me) have gotten richer, but too many people have gotten poorer.
When I voted Leave I did so because I felt the UK and the EU were simply too dissimilar politically and culturally, that the EU had a democratic deficit, and that there were certain things (like farming and fishing) that would always be better organised at a local level.
All those things are true.
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
Yes, I have been constantly asserting that. And the flavour of thread is that assertion is wrong. By ' lose ' I mean a short term economic shock, medium term lower trend growth then long term a more globalised UK economy as the alternative economic model. Those voters will lose most under this for the same reason they've lost most since ( insert preferred date ). They are the least equipped to cope with globalisation , Brexit doesn't alter that, globalisation isn't going anywhere.
However as many are arguing here perhaps there is much more to " loss " than I think. Culture, self esteem, demographics etc.
I am one of those little people as are most of my friends, when I was looking for work in 2002 the going rate for what I do was 38 to 42k. Today having been laid off (not due to brexit ) the going rate scanning the agency jobs is still 38k to 42k. In 2002 I could afford to buy a house, I could afford to visit bars and restaurants. I could afford to run a car and motorcycle. If I rented I could afford I nice place to live.
Now I watch as my friends who earn less reluctantly turn in their keys of rented flats and move back into shared accomodation. I watch them drive ever more tatty cars or give them up completely. Pay hasnt moved for most people in that time bar those on minimum wage and those in the public sector. I know of no one bar those two groups that have had a payrise that even matches the government defined rate of inflation. Those few that have seen anything in the nature of payrise.
A vote for the EU was a vote for more of the same, a slow sad decline into genteel poverty as our wages stayed flat lined while all around us increased in cost. Why vote for that at worst we just speed our decline, at best something might actually change.
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
They're a couple of years old, but median gross income for the top decile (single adult) is £60.5k. For a traditional family (2+2), it's £151.4k. Globally, you're in it whatever you make.
10% of families have incomes above £151k? Source please? That sounds high.
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
They're a couple of years old, but median gross income for the top decile (single adult) is £60.5k. For a traditional family (2+2), it's £151.4k. Globally, you're in it whatever you make.
10% of families have incomes above £151k? Source please? That sounds high.
Mr. Pulpstar, whilst obvious, Sturgeon being so blatant will not work to her advantage [although she may not need it to].
Not new Mr Dancer just lost my old logon credentials when my old PC died. Was posting as ZenPagan before
You know, I can simply reset your password for you if you like.
I tried that Robert then realised I had also lost the logon credentials for that email account. The curse of having passwords saved on the machine I guess so you automatically get logged in. Fine till its accounts you havent had to log in for years
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
They're a couple of years old, but median gross income for the top decile (single adult) is £60.5k. For a traditional family (2+2), it's £151.4k. Globally, you're in it whatever you make.
10% of families have incomes above £151k? Source please? That sounds high.
The kids seem to be earning 15k each in this example.
Anyway that IFS calculator didn't include the "Does your other half blow all their money on horses" option...
Yes, I have been constantly asserting that. And the flavour of thread is that assertion is wrong. By ' lose ' I mean a short term economic shock, medium term lower trend growth then long term a more globalised UK economy as the alternative economic model. Those voters will lose most under this for the same reason they've lost most since ( insert preferred date ). They are the least equipped to cope with globalisation , Brexit doesn't alter that, globalisation isn't going anywhere.
However as many are arguing here perhaps there is much more to " loss " than I think. Culture, self esteem, demographics etc.
I am one of those little people as are most of my friends, when I was looking for work in 2002 the going rate for what I do was 38 to 42k. Today having been laid off (not due to brexit ) the going rate scanning the agency jobs is still 38k to 42k. In 2002 I could afford to buy a house, I could afford to visit bars and restaurants. I could afford to run a car and motorcycle. If I rented I could afford I nice place to live.
Now I watch as my friends who earn less reluctantly turn in their keys of rented flats and move back into shared accomodation. I watch them drive ever more tatty cars or give them up completely. Pay hasnt moved for most people in that time bar those on minimum wage and those in the public sector. I know of no one bar those two groups that have had a payrise that even matches the government defined rate of inflation. Those few that have seen anything in the nature of payrise.
A vote for the EU was a vote for more of the same, a slow sad decline into genteel poverty as our wages stayed flat lined while all around us increased in cost. Why vote for that at worst we just speed our decline, at best something might actually change.
I feel quite sorry for you, though we've never met. It will be cold comfort I'm sure, but you're still in the ninth decile for UK incomes. That is, you're top 20%. That's how bad its become.
@rcs1000 - I think that's true only up to a point. Most people aren't motivated solely by money (it would be a very hollow world if they were) and values, principles and emotions do play a strong part in politics.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
Did you read my piece The Discontented? I really think the rise of insurgent political movements is because median real wages have gone backwards everywhere. Essentially, the 1% (me, and people like me) have gotten richer, but too many people have gotten poorer.
When I voted Leave I did so because I felt the UK and the EU were simply too dissimilar politically and culturally, that the EU had a democratic deficit, and that there were certain things (like farming and fishing) that would always be better organised at a local level.
All those things are true.
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
Why would you think that fishing, of all things, would be better organised at a local level?
Fish are migratory and have no respect for national waters, which means that what one nation does in its waters can critically affect the viability of other nations' waters. I'd have thought that fishing is a perfect example of the sort of activity that can benefit from regulation at an international level!
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
They're a couple of years old, but median gross income for the top decile (single adult) is £60.5k. For a traditional family (2+2), it's £151.4k. Globally, you're in it whatever you make.
10% of families have incomes above £151k? Source please? That sounds high.
OK... I see it
Are you saying the Grauniad might be....wrong? Unpossible .
@rcs1000 - I think that's true only up to a point. Most people aren't motivated solely by money (it would be a very hollow world if they were) and values, principles and emotions do play a strong part in politics.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
Did you read my piece The Discontented? I really think the rise of insurgent political movements is because median real wages have gone backwards everywhere. Essentially, the 1% (me, and people like me) have gotten richer, but too many people have gotten poorer.
When I voted Leave I did so because I felt the UK and the EU were simply too dissimilar politically and culturally, that the EU had a democratic deficit, and that there were certain things (like farming and fishing) that would always be better organised at a local level.
All those things are true.
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
Yes, and I thought it was an excellent piece of work.
I voted Leave for similar reasons to you and, just as we voted Leave in spite of our economic success - I am doing rather well and in the short term it is likely to cost me - there are others at the lower end of the scale who would have voted Leave with no expectation of getting any richer.
I feel quite sorry for you, though we've never met. It will be cold comfort I'm sure, but you're still in the ninth decile for UK incomes. That is, you're top 20%. That's how bad its become.
It is what it is John, luckily for me I have some options and am considering a move to a country with a lower cost of living. Given what I have been doing, working in the online gambling industry for the last couple of years there appears to be job opportunities in Malta for someone of my background
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
They're a couple of years old, but median gross income for the top decile (single adult) is £60.5k. For a traditional family (2+2), it's £151.4k. Globally, you're in it whatever you make.
10% of families have incomes above £151k? Source please? That sounds high.
OK... I see it
Are you saying the Grauniad might be....wrong? Unpossible .
Maybe it is just 10% of families of those working at the Gruaniad. Would explain their operating loss.
Yes, I have been constantly asserting that. And the flavour of thread is that assertion is wrong. By ' lose ' I mean a short term economic shock, medium term lower trend growth then long term a more globalised UK economy as the alternative economic model. Those voters will lose most under this for the same reason they've lost most since ( insert preferred date ). They are the least equipped to cope with globalisation , Brexit doesn't alter that, globalisation isn't going anywhere.
However as many are arguing here perhaps there is much more to " loss " than I think. Culture, self esteem, demographics etc.
I am one of those little people as are most of my friends, when I was looking for work in 2002 the going rate for what I do was 38 to 42k. Today having been laid off (not due to brexit ) the going rate scanning the agency jobs is still 38k to 42k. In 2002 I could afford to buy a house, I could afford to visit bars and restaurants. I could afford to run a car and motorcycle. If I rented I could afford I nice place to live.
Now I watch as my friends who earn less reluctantly turn in their keys of rented flats and move back into shared accomodation. I watch them drive ever more tatty cars or give them up completely. Pay hasnt moved for most people in that time bar those on minimum wage and those in the public sector. I know of no one bar those two groups that have had a payrise that even matches the government defined rate of inflation. Those few that have seen anything in the nature of payrise.
A vote for the EU was a vote for more of the same, a slow sad decline into genteel poverty as our wages stayed flat lined while all around us increased in cost. Why vote for that at worst we just speed our decline, at best something might actually change.
You need to read Kevin Kelly's the Inevitable and then reassess the Discontented. - If you think people are discontent now wait and see what's in store as computers consume the work of the middle classes..... Currently all we are seeing is the result of the globalization of the workforce, what happens when robots cost £5,000 and not £500,000....
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
Both campaigns were utter shit. Remain had the £4,300, the punishment budget, 'Little Englanders' and 'Back of the queue'. Leave had £350 million, Turkey, 'breaking point' poster and no clue what Brexit actually meant.
Nobody comes out of it well. Apart from me, I'm lovely .
A confused post, for two reasons. Firstly there were two distinct Leave campaigns, of which one had the £350million (an accurate estimate in my book, but one they utterly failed to defend with any capability), and Turkey, and the other of which had the poster. Secondly, it's unclear whether you're speaking about effectiveness or ethical standards. I was talking about effectiveness, or lack of in the case of Vote Leave. Leave.EU was, for the most part, quite effective imo.
You are quite possibly the only person on this board who still believes that the £350 million figure (available for the NHS or otherwise) was anything other than the flat lie that it was.
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
@rcs1000 - I think that's true only up to a point. Most people aren't motivated solely by money (it would be a very hollow world if they were) and values, principles and emotions do play a strong part in politics.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
Did you read my piece The Discontented? I really think the rise of insurgent political movements is because median real wages have gone backwards everywhere. Essentially, the 1% (me, and people like me) have gotten richer, but too many people have gotten poorer.
When I voted Leave I did so because I felt the UK and the EU were simply too dissimilar politically and culturally, that the EU had a democratic deficit, and that there were certain things (like farming and fishing) that would always be better organised at a local level.
All those things are true.
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
Why would you think that fishing, of all things, would be better organised at a local level?
Fish are migratory and have no respect for national waters, which means that what one nation does in its waters can critically affect the viability of other nations' waters. I'd have thought that fishing is a perfect example of the sort of activity that can benefit from regulation at an international level!
Fish may be migratory, but isn't fishing done mainly at known locations along the migratory paths - e.g. Georges Banks and Grand Banks?
I feel quite sorry for you, though we've never met. It will be cold comfort I'm sure, but you're still in the ninth decile for UK incomes. That is, you're top 20%. That's how bad its become.
It is what it is John, luckily for me I have some options and am considering a move to a country with a lower cost of living. Given what I have been doing, working in the online gambling industry for the last couple of years there appears to be job opportunities in Malta for someone of my background
@Pagan - I founded Betgenius, if you want me to put a word in for you there.
Comments
You did see the big warning at the top of that page saying "The neutrality of this article is disputed"
Do you consider the requirement for registration to vote in the UK that you provide a valid NI number or, failing that, be prepared to offer other proof of identity, to be voter suppression?
“currently 708 investigations into suspected Islamist terrorism in Germany involving 1,029 suspects.” https://t.co/PuObDVWj0J
#pt German “authorities in June said they had broken up a suspected Isis sleeper cell that was planning a terror attack in Düsseldorf.”
Dacre apologises for his shameless smearing.
Smear before the vote, retract afterwards.
Job done.
Fear only works if people believe things could get worse.
Bear shits in Bavarian wood:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36882831
But, given that the campaign was successful pretty much everywhere in England outside London, perhaps more than one explanation is required for the success of Leave.
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
YS
Do you really believe things can't get worse ?
--------------------
I imagine they will in the eyes of the 28-Country EU Sovereignty Movement, regardless of what actually happens.
Towards the end of my career, I noticed the rise of traffic light management, basically a high level dashboard for each area, coded red, amber, green. Of course, this meant that subordinates moved heaven and earth to ensure few ambers and no reds. At almost any cost.
We've been doing something like this for the economy. For all intents and purposes the UK's economic recovery has been achieved by importing people.
Our economy hasn't got better, it's just puffed up. But GDP: green. Same with employment. I did a quick breakdown a couple of days back. It's not necessarily as good as it looks. But top level: green.
If nothing else, EUref has encouraged us to start actually looking at our problems.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
"If you think you may be culturally compromised in 20-30 years time - in other words, you might move from a majority demographic group to a minority one, and are already witnessed what you feel are the effects of that - you might easily be willing to accept a 5% cut in your overall net worth if you feel that's the price of preventing that."
Given that the majority of the electorate have an overall net worth of bugger all it is not surprising that they would be prepared to take a cut in it of 5%. Cameron and Osborne lost because they did not understand that the great majority of people had rather different views of what was important to their own set.
That they only lost by a slender margin is something that future historians will argue about in years to come. I would only note that PB's own Tipster of the Year for Life (aka JackW) got the result totally and awfully wrong just illustrates how out of touch the Establishment (i.e. those that have) actually are.
It won't be a case of 'we dislike the UK' or even 'we like the UK and want to be friends but want to be separate'. It'll be seen, understandably as 'we prefer the EU to the UK'.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
Trump is value @ 31%.
I expect betfair will remain hillary-skewed right until the end, though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36878081
However as many are arguing here perhaps there is much more to " loss " than I think. Culture, self esteem, demographics etc.
Sturgeon is setting out her aims with admirable clarity. What's you beef?
But in any case too many posts from me in this thread ! I must get back to my Kubler-Ross model. Apparently I'm stuck in it !
Heart of stone etc.
She is therefore setting herself up to fail, and she knows it, whilst providing a marvellous pretext for a second referendum.
The problem is that as soon as you look into it you really would be debating whether in reality it was Amber or Red........
The thing is that those things are Amber if you just look at the structural and technological changes that still need to progress through the system.... If red is bad, what is the equivalent of flashing red with the klaxon going while the rats are jumping overboard into the sea...
The challenge for rUK will be to preserve its global status and standing in the wake of a Scottish departure, and without compromising integrated defence of the island of GB.
1. Scotland is currently part of the UK.
2. Could be met by EEA with UK farming subsidies + Horizon2020 membership.
3. Kind of irrelevant unless you really do believe that Tories eat babies.
4. Kind of irrelevant; there are plenty of non-EU supra-national ways to cooperate on these topics.
5. Rules out the EEA, which, for practical purposes does just abide by EU trade regulations.
It's the conflict between points 2 and 5 that mean nothing but continued EU membership will meet her interests.
Now I watch as my friends who earn less reluctantly turn in their keys of rented flats and move back into shared accomodation. I watch them drive ever more tatty cars or give them up completely. Pay hasnt moved for most people in that time bar those on minimum wage and those in the public sector. I know of no one bar those two groups that have had a payrise that even matches the government defined rate of inflation. Those few that have seen anything in the nature of payrise.
A vote for the EU was a vote for more of the same, a slow sad decline into genteel poverty as our wages stayed flat lined while all around us increased in cost. Why vote for that at worst we just speed our decline, at best something might actually change.
Should SDP2 happen, that'll knock another half a dozen points off Corbyns ratings because there is always a tranch of hardcore supporters (say around 15-20% for each party) who grudgingly endorse the leader come what may and never say they're doing a bad job. I'm probably one of these very people within the Tory support base, come to think of it.
I know it's often said here but truly seriously, The Thick of it doesn't even come close to this....
Mr. Pulpstar, whilst obvious, Sturgeon being so blatant will not work to her advantage [although she may not need it to].
When I voted Leave I did so because I felt the UK and the EU were simply too dissimilar politically and culturally, that the EU had a democratic deficit, and that there were certain things (like farming and fishing) that would always be better organised at a local level.
All those things are true.
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
Quite suprising.
Anyway that IFS calculator didn't include the "Does your other half blow all their money on horses" option...
Fish are migratory and have no respect for national waters, which means that what one nation does in its waters can critically affect the viability of other nations' waters. I'd have thought that fishing is a perfect example of the sort of activity that can benefit from regulation at an international level!
I voted Leave for similar reasons to you and, just as we voted Leave in spite of our economic success - I am doing rather well and in the short term it is likely to cost me - there are others at the lower end of the scale who would have voted Leave with no expectation of getting any richer.
http://order-order.com/2016/07/25/sarah-champion-retracts-resignation-asks-reinstated-shadow-minister/
By the looks so are horses