Back to the age thing again - adjusted for the correlation between voting leave and being older and less educated, London was no more for Leave than anywhere else. It is just that Inner London has a lot of people with degrees and, relatively, fewer pensioners, whereas Outer London has its quota of pensioners and a significant non-university workforce (including all the cabbies and white van men of east London where the biggest leave votes were).
Leave voters: old and stupid. Remain voters: bright and intelligent.
Heard it all before, but very convenient for rationalising your vote based on what you perceive to be your direct economic interest if you don't give a toss about politics.
1. It wasn't my analysis - the work was done by a reputable academic and his presentation was linked (not by me) and discussed on PB a month or so after the vote.
2. He started with a full range of socio-economic indicators and looked at the correlations down to council area. He found that the two indicators that correlated most strongly with the variation between one area and another (and indeed together explained most of the variation) were age and the proportion of residents with degrees.
3. At regional level the model he constructed using the area level correlations to 'predict' the overall result were very close - London more or less on par, as I said. The only region significantly more Remain than the model suggested was Scotland (for political reasons we all understand) and, interestingly, Wales as slightly so. The more Leave areas, as I recall, were the North East (might have been NW?) and West Midlands.
So this is academic research - not some SeanT like rant based on the last person I spoke to. I can't help that you may not like the findings!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that correlation implies causation.
That the only reason we're leaving is because idiots and bigots have the vote, and that anyone with a brain who's informed would naturally vote to stay.
It's not about intelligence. It's about economic interest, combined with values.
If the EU penalised the young, rewarded pensioners and heavily impeded the options of higher income workers we would have seen rather different demographic splits.
Leave voters: old and stupid. Remain voters: bright and intelligent.
Heard it all before, but very convenient for rationalising your vote based on what you perceive to be your direct economic interest if you don't give a toss about politics.
Come on Mr Royale! All Mr B2 is saying is that there is no special "multicultural, pro-European" gene that gets switched on with a Shoreditch postcode. It's simply that those demographic groups that broke heavily for remain, are heavily over-represented in Inner London areas.
Exactly. (mostly Inner) London has a young educated population, which analysis suggests was no more or less pro-Remain than young educated people in the rest of the UK.
The Opinion attitudes survey was extremely accurate IMO. I could apply its findings to myself and most of my friends quite accurately both in terms of how they voted in the referendum and their current VI. Definitely worth holding onto it for future reference.
I still kind of hoped that Ken Clarke would stay on as an MP, only stand for the LDs in 2020. People have been joking about or accusing him of being a LD in all but name for years anyway, I think it would be hilarious, after 50 years as a Tory MP, to make the switch.
Even better if Anna Soubry, Gloria De Piero and Alan Meale also defected. Paint Notts yellow.
He's a moderate, liberal Tory who worked for Heath early on. Heseltine's another. Macmillan was another ... far left of New Labour on economic policy. Those still in parliament no doubt keep their heads down for fear of being shot down by Cash, Davies, Redwood or headbangers in their constituency who want to deselect them.
As Ken Clarke once implied, Nick Clegg has views almost indistinguishable from these left-wing, more moderate Tories. They were in power for 50% of the 1945-79 period, Old Labour for the other 50%. An 'inconvenient truth' is that many aspects of the economy did better then than in the last 37 years.
Name those aspects please.
The UK was like Greece today in 1979. Bankrupt and having had to call in the IMF, the sick man of Europe.
Leave voters: old and stupid. Remain voters: bright and intelligent.
Heard it all before, but very convenient for rationalising your vote based on what you perceive to be your direct economic interest if you don't give a toss about politics.
Come on Mr Royale! All Mr B2 is saying is that there is no special "multicultural, pro-European" gene that gets switched on with a Shoreditch postcode. It's simply that those demographic groups that broke heavily for remain, are heavily over-represented in Inner London areas.
Indeed, like it or not Remain voters were on the whole far better educated than Leave.
But it doesn't follow that the smarter and more highly educated you are the more likely you are to appreciate the glorious benefits of the EU.
Most Remainers I met were pig ignorant about the EU.
A better explanation, if still crude, is that people with degrees are more likely to see themselves as having opportunities arising from 'globalisation' (whatever we take that to mean), and/or are more likely to have travelled widely, whereas people without might well see globalisation (with a strong immigration dimension) as principally a threat. Very clearly, younger people nowadays have travelled much more than older people (on average). But it was statistical analysis so can only identify the pattern, not explain it.
So on that metric the first post-Debate State Poll actually shows not much of movement. Which is a good thing for Trump.
5% behind seems quite good for a Republican in Michigan (Romney was 10% behind) but close wins no prizes.
If it is a close win for Clinton (and just about everyone objective agrees she will be a massive disappointment) then 2020 should really be for the Republicans taking.
But, somehow, I can't help feel they might muck it up. Yet again.
No, that's your opinion not "everyone's".
As unfashionable a view as it is on PBTrump.com I happen to think she'll make a bloody excellent president.
She may not be the most charismatic candidate but the US is electing a commander-in-chief, not a reality TV star.
Professional lefties like you are not objective. It's v.telling you object so strongly.
She will be shit: worse than Obama. Highly unpopular in less than a year.
There's a narrative, not just on this forum, that both candidates are equally bad (and in that case maybe try the interesting one). Like Jobabob, I disagree with that narrative. Clinton is, by far, better qualified to be president. She ticks the boxes; Trump doesn't. Clinton is experienced, hard-working, level-headed and works well with interest groups to get things done. Trump is none of those things. This transcends policy.
It's different from say Romney and Obama. Both were qualified; Romney arguably more so. In that case it came down to policy and symbolism.
I think you all keep forgetting that far fewer people in the 50+ actually hold University degrees. So it is a prime case of selection bias which, I would have hoped, the 'very clever' Remainers would have worked out. Maybe in reality they are just as thick as two short planks.
Professional lefties like you are not objective. It's v.telling you object so strongly.
Implying that not being a "professional lefty", you are more objective? Pull the other one.
All of us have views that are prejudiced by selective experience and the perspective we have formed to date. So none of us is objective, but it says something about you if you think you are simply on the basis of your political outlook. All that we can do to try and preserve some objectivity is engage in discussion with those that don't share our own perspective, rather than do so in forums of the like-minded. And also to try and engage in wider life experiences to understand the perspectives of others. The diversity of opinion on this site is unusual and one of the reasons why it is so good, but I get the impression views are formed mainly on the basis of selective middle class life experiences.
I think you all keep forgetting that far fewer people in the 50+ actually hold University degrees. So it is a prime case of selection bias which, I would have hoped, the 'very clever' Remainers would have worked out. Maybe in reality they are just as thick as two short planks.
Certainly age and likelihood of a degree level qualification are inter-correlated (negatively). But so in one way or another are all socio-economic indicators. I don't see that this invalidates the analysis - multi-variate analysis always works on that basis.
Interesting article attempting to explain Trump and BrExit in terms of the Ultimate Game, but in reality his second diagram says all that needs to be said.
1. It wasn't my analysis - the work was done by a reputable academic and his presentation was linked (not by me) and discussed on PB a month or so after the vote.
2. He started with a full range of socio-economic indicators and looked at the correlations down to council area. He found that the two indicators that correlated most strongly with the variation between one area and another (and indeed together explained most of the variation) were age and the proportion of residents with degrees.
3. At regional level the model he constructed using the area level correlations to 'predict' the overall result were very close - London more or less on par, as I said. The only region significantly more Remain than the model suggested was Scotland (for political reasons we all understand) and, interestingly, Wales as slightly so. The more Leave areas, as I recall, were the North East (might have been NW?) and West Midlands.
So this is academic research - not some SeanT like rant based on the last person I spoke to. I can't help that you may not like the findings!
Quite why we have to have the same discussion every couple of months I don't know, but as we are I will chime in with the same point that was made months ago.
Not that long ago, the entry level requirements to most professions was five O levels and only a very small proportion (10%?) of young people went to university. So most lawyers, accountants, engineers, you name it did not have degrees.
So to argue that a lack of a degree somehow entails being thick is complete bollocks.
I think you all keep forgetting that far fewer people in the 50+ actually hold University degrees. So it is a prime case of selection bias which, I would have hoped, the 'very clever' Remainers would have worked out. Maybe in reality they are just as thick as two short planks.
Age and education factors worked independently in this case. You were more likely to vote Leave if you were old and Remain if you were educated. Educated older people were more likely to vote Remain than less well educated ones but less likely than educated younger people. The two factors reinforced each other in aggregate
1. It wasn't my analysis - the work was done by a reputable academic and his presentation was linked (not by me) and discussed on PB a month or so after the vote.
2. He started with a full range of socio-economic indicators and looked at the correlations down to council area. He found that the two indicators that correlated most strongly with the variation between one area and another (and indeed together explained most of the variation) were age and the proportion of residents with degrees.
3. At regional level the model he constructed using the area level correlations to 'predict' the overall result were very close - London more or less on par, as I said. The only region significantly more Remain than the model suggested was Scotland (for political reasons we all understand) and, interestingly, Wales as slightly so. The more Leave areas, as I recall, were the North East (might have been NW?) and West Midlands.
So this is academic research - not some SeanT like rant based on the last person I spoke to. I can't help that you may not like the findings!
Quite why we have to have the same discussion every couple of months I don't know, but as we are I will chime in with the same point that was made months ago.
Not that long ago, the entry level requirements to most professions was five O levels and only a very small proportion (10%?) of young people went to university. So most lawyers, accountants, engineers, you name it did not have degrees.
So to argue that a lack of a degree somehow entails being thick is complete bollocks.
I raised it only because it explains precisely the Inner/Outer London query that arose downthread.
I would suggest that the explanation for the correlation is far more likely connected with opportunity/threat (and possibly with breadth of experience) than with intelligence.
Regarding the earlier discussion of the new runway decision, where did the report that May is going for Heathrow come from? I don't see anything on the main news sites.
Regarding the earlier discussion of the new runway decision, where did the report that May is going for Heathrow come from? I don't see anything on the main news sites.
The FT are reporting that May has done the count and has the numbers to push it through and be damned.
Leave voters: old and stupid. Remain voters: bright and intelligent.
Heard it all before, but very convenient for rationalising your vote based on what you perceive to be your direct economic interest if you don't give a toss about politics.
Come on Mr Royale! All Mr B2 is saying is that there is no special "multicultural, pro-European" gene that gets switched on with a Shoreditch postcode. It's simply that those demographic groups that broke heavily for remain, are heavily over-represented in Inner London areas.
Indeed, like it or not Remain voters were on the whole far better educated than Leave.
But it doesn't follow that the smarter and more highly educated you are the more likely you are to appreciate the glorious benefits of the EU.
Most Remainers I met were pig ignorant about the EU.
A better explanation, if still crude, is that people with degrees are more likely to see themselves as having opportunities arising from 'globalisation' (whatever we take that to mean), and/or are more likely to have travelled widely, whereas people without might well see globalisation (with a strong immigration dimension) as principally a threat. Very clearly, younger people nowadays have travelled much more than older people (on average). But it was statistical analysis so can only identify the pattern, not explain it.
Globalisation explains some of it, but the EU is uniquely overbearing on matters of self-governance as well and there are those who voted Leave because they wanted more globalisation, not less.
SlateStarCodex - conservative American blog - on why one should vote Hillary. The whole thing is excellent; here is an excerpt:
"When I talk to Trump supporters, it’s not usually about doubting climate change, or thinking Trump will take the conservative movement in the right direction, or even immigration. It’s about the feeling that a group of arrogant, intolerant, sanctimonious elites have seized control of a lot of national culture and are using it mostly to spread falsehood and belittle anybody different than them. And Trump is both uniquely separate from these elites and uniquely repugnant to them – which makes him look pretty good to everyone else.
This is definitely true. Please vote Hillary anyway.
Aside from the fact that getting back at annoying people isn’t worth eroding the foundations of civil society – do you really think a Trump election is going to hurt these people at all? Make them question anything? “Oh, 51% of the American people disagree with me, I guess that means I’ve got a lot of self-reflecting to do.” Of course not. A Trump election would just confirm for them exactly what they already believe – that the average American is a stupid racist who needs to be kept as far away from public life as possible. If Trump gets elected, sure, the editorial pages will be full of howls of despair the next day, but underneath the howls will be quiet satisfaction that the world is exactly the way they believed it to be."
Regarding the earlier discussion of the new runway decision, where did the report that May is going for Heathrow come from? I don't see anything on the main news sites.
The FT are reporting that May has done the count and has the numbers to push it through and be damned.
I still kind of hoped that Ken Clarke would stay on as an MP, only stand for the LDs in 2020. People have been joking about or accusing him of being a LD in all but name for years anyway, I think it would be hilarious, after 50 years as a Tory MP, to make the switch.
Even better if Anna Soubry, Gloria De Piero and Alan Meale also defected. Paint Notts yellow.
He's a moderate, liberal Tory who worked for Heath early on. Heseltine's another. Macmillan was another ... far left of New Labour on economic policy. Those still in parliament no doubt keep their heads down for fear of being shot down by Cash, Davies, Redwood or headbangers in their constituency who want to deselect them.
As Ken Clarke once implied, Nick Clegg has views almost indistinguishable from these left-wing, more moderate Tories. They were in power for 50% of the 1945-79 period, Old Labour for the other 50%. An 'inconvenient truth' is that many aspects of the economy did better then than in the last 37 years.
Name those aspects please.
The UK was like Greece today in 1979. Bankrupt and having had to call in the IMF, the sick man of Europe.
The UK today is doing far better.
I'm not focussing on 1979 but the entire period from 1945 which was generally one of considerable economic growth and rising equality i.e. 'we're all in this together'. Real wages rose 40%, 1950-1965. Unemployment was limited to 2%. 300,000 homes per year or more were constructed, i.e. the sort of rate we need now & fail to achieve. The UK had nearly gone bankrupt in 1945.
The 1970s were largely a missed opportunity, illustrated by Callaghan's brutal sacking of Castle (who'd tried to tame excessive/unreasonable union power while in office). Another future opportunity to do the work 'peacefully' was lost when Whitelaw, a moderate, failed to become leader in 1975.
Some stats. in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_Britain, also the BBC has a review of the two post-war periods i.e. One Nation Tory/Old Labour and Thatcher & Sons (see Simon Jenkins' book).
"He is the first MP to announce that he will vote against Brexit in the Commons, saying: “The idea that I’m suddenly going to change my lifelong opinions about the national interest and regard myself as instructed to vote in parliament on the basis of an opinion poll is laughable.”
Mr Clarke also lambasted David Cameron for calling the EU Referendum, saying the former Prime Minister will “go down in history as the man who made the mistake of taking us out of the European Union”."
Apparently there are about twenty Europhile Tory MPs. If only some of them choose to rebel, and Labour/SNP/LibDems come up with some Maastricht-like ruse to vote down the legislation, then Theresa could suddenly be transformed into Mrs Major. Could get messy.
I have yet to see there is anything like a group of 20 Tory MPs prepared to go against the will of the electorate.
I would not approve of the waste of time by voting against A50.
But surely by that logic every opposition should vote with the government all the time as it would be the "will of the electorate ".
That is the amusing taking it to it's absurd extreme, yes.
Professional lefties like you are not objective. It's v.telling you object so strongly.
Implying that not being a "professional lefty", you are more objective? Pull the other one.
All of us have views that are prejudiced by selective experience and the perspective we have formed to date. So none of us is objective, but it says something about you if you think you are simply on the basis of your political outlook. All that we can do to try and preserve some objectivity is engage in discussion with those that don't share our own perspective, rather than do so in forums of the like-minded. And also to try and engage in wider life experiences to understand the perspectives of others. The diversity of opinion on this site is unusual and one of the reasons why it is so good, but I get the impression views are formed mainly on the basis of selective middle class life experiences.
Calm down. I wasn't talking about you.
Jobajob - or whatever he's called - hasn't posted a single objective, unpartisan post on here in his life. Zero value-add. So I found his vociferous objection telling.
Obviously I respect the thoughts and views of the thoughtful and reflective Left, and I would include SO, Jonathan, yourself and Rochdalepioneer in that.
Comments
That the only reason we're leaving is because idiots and bigots have the vote, and that anyone with a brain who's informed would naturally vote to stay.
It's not about intelligence. It's about economic interest, combined with values.
If the EU penalised the young, rewarded pensioners and heavily impeded the options of higher income workers we would have seen rather different demographic splits.
The UK was like Greece today in 1979. Bankrupt and having had to call in the IMF, the sick man of Europe.
The UK today is doing far better.
It's different from say Romney and Obama. Both were qualified; Romney arguably more so. In that case it came down to policy and symbolism.
All of us have views that are prejudiced by selective experience and the perspective we have formed to date. So none of us is objective, but it says something about you if you think you are simply on the basis of your political outlook. All that we can do to try and preserve some objectivity is engage in discussion with those that don't share our own perspective, rather than do so in forums of the like-minded. And also to try and engage in wider life experiences to understand the perspectives of others. The diversity of opinion on this site is unusual and one of the reasons why it is so good, but I get the impression views are formed mainly on the basis of selective middle class life experiences.
Not that long ago, the entry level requirements to most professions was five O levels and only a very small proportion (10%?) of young people went to university. So most lawyers, accountants, engineers, you name it did not have degrees.
So to argue that a lack of a degree somehow entails being thick is complete bollocks.
I would suggest that the explanation for the correlation is far more likely connected with opportunity/threat (and possibly with breadth of experience) than with intelligence.
But it's actually the "Ultimatum Game"
"When I talk to Trump supporters, it’s not usually about doubting climate change, or thinking Trump will take the conservative movement in the right direction, or even immigration. It’s about the feeling that a group of arrogant, intolerant, sanctimonious elites have seized control of a lot of national culture and are using it mostly to spread falsehood and belittle anybody different than them. And Trump is both uniquely separate from these elites and uniquely repugnant to them – which makes him look pretty good to everyone else.
This is definitely true. Please vote Hillary anyway.
Aside from the fact that getting back at annoying people isn’t worth eroding the foundations of civil society – do you really think a Trump election is going to hurt these people at all? Make them question anything? “Oh, 51% of the American people disagree with me, I guess that means I’ve got a lot of self-reflecting to do.” Of course not. A Trump election would just confirm for them exactly what they already believe – that the average American is a stupid racist who needs to be kept as far away from public life as possible. If Trump gets elected, sure, the editorial pages will be full of howls of despair the next day, but underneath the howls will be quiet satisfaction that the world is exactly the way they believed it to be."
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/28/ssc-endorses-clinton-johnson-or-stein/
The 1970s were largely a missed opportunity, illustrated by Callaghan's brutal sacking of Castle (who'd tried to tame excessive/unreasonable union power while in office). Another future opportunity to do the work 'peacefully' was lost when Whitelaw, a moderate, failed to become leader in 1975.
Some stats. in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_Britain, also the BBC has a review of the two post-war periods i.e. One Nation Tory/Old Labour and Thatcher & Sons (see Simon Jenkins' book).
Jobajob - or whatever he's called - hasn't posted a single objective, unpartisan post on here in his life. Zero value-add. So I found his vociferous objection telling.
Obviously I respect the thoughts and views of the thoughtful and reflective Left, and I would include SO, Jonathan, yourself and Rochdalepioneer in that.