Howdy, Stranger!

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

The conference season voting intention polls – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 8 in General
imageThe conference season voting intention polls – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • NorthstarNorthstar Posts: 80
    YouGov is probably a bit pre-conference to be a reliable indicator for how Boris’s speech went down.

    Would be nice to know what the average movement has been for previous governments between mid-term polling and the results of the next election - ie on average from here what sort of upward movement might be possible for the Con share?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,981
    edited October 8
    Even if other polls follow, this doesn't mean a BoJo win.

    Mid term polls bear no relation to subsequent general election results.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,915
    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
  • @MichaelPDeacon
    Replying to
    @twlldun
    He should just stick to football but also present a fully costed general election manifesto
    https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/1446403113607389210
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,731
    edited October 8

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    And a decade earlier Ken Livingstone was viewed as a possible "certainty" for a third term that was recommended should be backed at odds-on of 0.58/1
    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    Things can move quite significantly, can't they?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 659
    I think there too many known unknowns as well as possibly some unknown unknowns to read anything into polls this far away from the election.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,256
    More interesting than public polling might be that members of each party seemed more-or-less disillusioned with their champion.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819
    edited October 8
    As has been pointed out. Tory figure is hugely consistent.
    However. 17 consecutive polls showing 39, 40 or 41 is a statistical freak.
    One would call herding were it not for the seemingly no idea what the Labour score is.
    Edit:
    On a closer look it is 35, 36 or 37. Apart from 3 You Govs.
    So 40 -36 it is then.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    The Greens are much higher with Yougov than most pollsters though and most Green voters will go Labour in the end.

    At the moment what the polling chart shows is the most likely general election outcome is either a small Tory majority or a hung parliament
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,018

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    Well yes, there's a reason the NI hike/social care reforms are being done well before the election this time.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,981
    HYUFD said:

    The Greens are much higher with Yougov than most pollsters though and most Green voters will go Labour in the end.

    At the moment what the polling chart shows is the most likely general election outcome is either a small Tory majority or a hung parliament

    It would if the election were three weeks rather than three years away. As it is, it shows the square root of f all.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819
    HYUFD said:

    The Greens are much higher with Yougov than most pollsters though and most Green voters will go Labour in the end.

    At the moment what the polling chart shows is the most likely general election outcome is either a small Tory majority or a hung parliament

    There was some idle chatter about a Spring election the other day.
    On those figures that would be "brave". Bordering on the "clinically insane."
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    NOM is a value.

    It's a vast ocean across which any party must pass to get a majority.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,981

    NOM is a value.

    It's a vast ocean across which any party must pass to get a majority.

    It is since most of Scotland, all of Northern Ireland, parts of North Wales and Brighton have basically opted out of national politics.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    For those who haven't had it yet the Flu Jab now available - I found it very easy to organise via Boots - and free for over-60s:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58836218

    https://www.boots.com/online/pharmacy-services/winter-flu-jab-services

    Thanks Carlotta, much appreciated. I assume the jab gets recorded and added to your GP's records?
    I have never given an NHS number when getting a supermarket/chemists flu jab. Not sure how they would get added to GP records without that.
    Name address and dob are enough to find it in the database.
    While the Boots form asks for NHS number and GP, I'm in the process of moving GP and they said "just tell your new GP you've had it".

    Very efficient process - and as has been pointed out upthread, free for over 50s (and £14.99 for under-50s).
    Hold on a minute, weren't the blue tick wankers all saying that we'd have a shortage of flu jabs this year because of Brexit and no HGV drivers?! I'm sure I read that it wouldn't be possible to get one and people over 60 would have to go without over the winter.

    Is there anything they've got right?!
    Boots told me just yesterday that there are current shortages of the jab, affecting appointment numbers, for just that reason
    And yet anyone is eligible to book? Feels more like a BP style PR campaign to get cheap workers back.
    She told me in a private conversation while the needle was being stuck into my arm, so I'd suggest that is wilful projection on your part.
    And yet Boots are still keeping bookings open for the whole country? These two things are mutually exclusive. If they had shortages eligibility would be restricted significantly. So the reality is somewhat different to what a local jabber has told you.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,496
    Basically c'est la vie on the polls - no real change from pre-season with each of the main parties trending around 39 C / 35 Lab / 9 LDs with a bit of give and take.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839
    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    For those who haven't had it yet the Flu Jab now available - I found it very easy to organise via Boots - and free for over-60s:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58836218

    https://www.boots.com/online/pharmacy-services/winter-flu-jab-services

    Thanks Carlotta, much appreciated. I assume the jab gets recorded and added to your GP's records?
    I have never given an NHS number when getting a supermarket/chemists flu jab. Not sure how they would get added to GP records without that.
    Name address and dob are enough to find it in the database.
    While the Boots form asks for NHS number and GP, I'm in the process of moving GP and they said "just tell your new GP you've had it".

    Very efficient process - and as has been pointed out upthread, free for over 50s (and £14.99 for under-50s).
    Hold on a minute, weren't the blue tick wankers all saying that we'd have a shortage of flu jabs this year because of Brexit and no HGV drivers?! I'm sure I read that it wouldn't be possible to get one and people over 60 would have to go without over the winter.

    Is there anything they've got right?!
    Boots told me just yesterday that there are current shortages of the jab, affecting appointment numbers, for just that reason
    And yet anyone is eligible to book? Feels more like a BP style PR campaign to get cheap workers back.
    She told me in a private conversation while the needle was being stuck into my arm, so I'd suggest that is wilful projection on your part.
    And yet Boots are still keeping bookings open for the whole country? These two things are mutually exclusive. If they had shortages eligibility would be restricted significantly. So the reality is somewhat different to what a local jabber has told you.
    If a store can say do 50 appointments a day but they only have 25 vaccines. If 25 appointments are available online, how visible is the actual issue?

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,604
    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    Yep - definitely something to be aware of when the next pandemic arrives - once you know what the important (killer) symptoms are ensure people get help early rather than late.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,937
    edited October 8
    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    For those who haven't had it yet the Flu Jab now available - I found it very easy to organise via Boots - and free for over-60s:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58836218

    https://www.boots.com/online/pharmacy-services/winter-flu-jab-services

    Thanks Carlotta, much appreciated. I assume the jab gets recorded and added to your GP's records?
    I have never given an NHS number when getting a supermarket/chemists flu jab. Not sure how they would get added to GP records without that.
    Name address and dob are enough to find it in the database.
    While the Boots form asks for NHS number and GP, I'm in the process of moving GP and they said "just tell your new GP you've had it".

    Very efficient process - and as has been pointed out upthread, free for over 50s (and £14.99 for under-50s).
    Hold on a minute, weren't the blue tick wankers all saying that we'd have a shortage of flu jabs this year because of Brexit and no HGV drivers?! I'm sure I read that it wouldn't be possible to get one and people over 60 would have to go without over the winter.

    Is there anything they've got right?!
    Boots told me just yesterday that there are current shortages of the jab, affecting appointment numbers, for just that reason
    And yet anyone is eligible to book? Feels more like a BP style PR campaign to get cheap workers back.
    She told me in a private conversation while the needle was being stuck into my arm, so I'd suggest that is wilful projection on your part.
    And yet Boots are still keeping bookings open for the whole country? These two things are mutually exclusive. If they had shortages eligibility would be restricted significantly. So the reality is somewhat different to what a local jabber has told you.
    If a store can say do 50 appointments a day but they only have 25 vaccines. If 25 appointments are available online, how visible is the actual issue?

    The provisioning system wouldn't have 50 appointments available. It would be completely ridiculous. If Boots have only got enough supply for say 60+ people then they'd only have appointments open for 60+ people not all ages.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,074
    @Casino_Royale from last thread. Killing off the general discussion but on a separate note you seemed surprised that I thought I might be to the right of you on some things and asked for examples. Clearly it is difficult to give specifics without an in depth discussion but in general I get the impression you are a traditional Conservative, more along the lines of @HYUFD although not as traditional as him, whereas I am more along the lines of an Orange Booker. Although I have some humdinger arguments with @Philip_Thompson on many things my views are often in line with him, although maybe not quite as libertarian as him, I am very libertarian.

    Have I judged that correctly?

    I am often misjudged as being of the left because I attack the Conservatives often, but equally I don't support Labour. I have never voted Labour and I am 67 in a few weeks. I often feel traditional Conservatives come out with some staggering Socialist policies (not you, just in general).
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,937
    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    Fishing said:

    NOM is a value.

    It's a vast ocean across which any party must pass to get a majority.

    It is since most of Scotland, all of Northern Ireland, parts of North Wales and Brighton have basically opted out of national politics.
    What we need is an experimental mix of MRP in the marginals (demographics and values) with different polling shares *and* overlay traditional floaters (economy and competence) on top.

    What seats are likely to be stable regardless? Which are likely to change due to "values shifts" (largely down to demographics, places like Wycombe and Chingford) and which due to economic and competency factors (Leigh and Peterborough)?

    Some will double-up - there could be massive swings in places like Milton Keynes and Worthing, for example, whilst the Red Wall moves very modestly.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    Will need to read in full (which I will if I find time) but there is no question that migration should improve productivity.

    The great unknown will be whether the import of low skilled immigrants brought the figures down overall rather than helping it. I suspect it's impossible to test prior to now (unless we look at Switzerland and work out how to map things) if excluding low skilled migrants will improve those figures.

    However 1% migration -> 0.86% productivity improvement doesn't look good and estimates are just that estimates with assumptions that need to be verified.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,256
    dixiedean said:

    As has been pointed out. Tory figure is hugely consistent.
    However. 17 consecutive polls showing 39, 40 or 41 is a statistical freak.
    One would call herding were it not for the seemingly no idea what the Labour score is.
    Edit:
    On a closer look it is 35, 36 or 37. Apart from 3 You Govs.
    So 40 -36 it is then.

    Why would it change? What, after two years of this Prime Minister and two weeks of party conferences, is Labour intending to do that the Conservatives are not? VAT on school fees is hardly storming the barricades.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    kjh said:

    @Casino_Royale from last thread. Killing off the general discussion but on a separate note you seemed surprised that I thought I might be to the right of you on some things and asked for examples. Clearly it is difficult to give specifics without an in depth discussion but in general I get the impression you are a traditional Conservative, more along the lines of @HYUFD although not as traditional as him, whereas I am more along the lines of an Orange Booker. Although I have some humdinger arguments with @Philip_Thompson on many things my views are often in line with him, although maybe not quite as libertarian as him, I am very libertarian.

    Have I judged that correctly?

    I am often misjudged as being of the left because I attack the Conservatives often, but equally I don't support Labour. I have never voted Labour and I am 67 in a few weeks. I often feel traditional Conservatives come out with some staggering Socialist policies (not you, just in general).

    Thanks. So, you're very free-market then I presume?

    I consider myself to be a traditional shire Tory. I don't agree with anyone all of the time on anything but I think the poster on here that comes closest to my views is @Sean_F
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 5,982
    Fishing said:

    NOM is a value.

    It's a vast ocean across which any party must pass to get a majority.

    It is since most of Scotland, all of Northern Ireland, parts of North Wales and Brighton have basically opted out of national politics.
    Can't blame them.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,674

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,074
    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    For those who haven't had it yet the Flu Jab now available - I found it very easy to organise via Boots - and free for over-60s:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58836218

    https://www.boots.com/online/pharmacy-services/winter-flu-jab-services

    Thanks Carlotta, much appreciated. I assume the jab gets recorded and added to your GP's records?
    I have never given an NHS number when getting a supermarket/chemists flu jab. Not sure how they would get added to GP records without that.
    Name address and dob are enough to find it in the database.
    While the Boots form asks for NHS number and GP, I'm in the process of moving GP and they said "just tell your new GP you've had it".

    Very efficient process - and as has been pointed out upthread, free for over 50s (and £14.99 for under-50s).
    Hold on a minute, weren't the blue tick wankers all saying that we'd have a shortage of flu jabs this year because of Brexit and no HGV drivers?! I'm sure I read that it wouldn't be possible to get one and people over 60 would have to go without over the winter.

    Is there anything they've got right?!
    Boots told me just yesterday that there are current shortages of the jab, affecting appointment numbers, for just that reason
    And yet anyone is eligible to book? Feels more like a BP style PR campaign to get cheap workers bac by the wasted journeyk.
    She told me in a private conversation while the needle was being stuck into my arm, so I'd suggest that is wilful projection on your part.
    And yet Boots are still keeping bookings open for the whole country? These two things are mutually exclusive. If they had shortages eligibility would be restricted significantly. So the reality is somewhat different to what a local jabber has told you.
    We booked with Lloyds Chemist. It is a shambles, they have cancelled all appointments due to lack of jabs. Annoyingly no notification and I even got a reminder the day before. Just told when I turned up. They are still taking booking! The Nextdoor forum is all over it and people are getting very annoyed by the wasted journeys.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,937
    eek said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    Will need to read in full (which I will if I find time) but there is no question that migration should improve productivity.

    The great unknown will be whether the import of low skilled immigrants brought the figures down overall rather than helping it. I suspect it's impossible to test prior to now (unless we look at Switzerland and work out how to map things) if excluding low skilled migrants will improve those figures.

    However 1% migration -> 0.86% productivity improvement doesn't look good and estimates are just that estimates with assumptions that need to be verified.

    There’s some detail in there about low skill versus high skill.

    Of course, low skill can become high skill over time, too. I think that’s often forgotten.

    My first job in the U.K. was in a mail-room.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 502
    Sad news. James Brokenshore has passed away. Far too early.

    https://order-order.com/2021/10/08/breaking-james-brokenshire-passes-away
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,074
    Guido reporting that James Brokenshire has passed away.

    He has been off work with lung cancer.
    https://order-order.com/2021/10/08/breaking-james-brokenshire-passes-away/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    MattW said:

    Guido reporting that James Brokenshire has passed away.

    He has been off work with lung cancer.
    https://order-order.com/2021/10/08/breaking-james-brokenshire-passes-away/

    Oh no
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,731
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
    Its a social science, but we're overly reliant upon assumption and models. As with anything using assumptions and models, it ends up a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    For virtually any position on anything it is possible to find an economist to argue on behalf of that position. It is equally possible to find an economist to argue against that position. Both will have models and evidence to support them, neither is lying, but both have chosen their own assumptions and those assumption will shape the output.

    Anyone who thinks they're right because they've seen an economic model that agrees with them . . . doesn't understand economics at all.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,937
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
    Lockdown was the solution.
    At least until vaccines came along…
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,474
    Eric Zemmour has issued a statement saying that France needs to assert the supremacy of French law and support Poland against the European Commission. The response from members of Macron's government has been to point out that this implies Frexit and treat it as a gotcha, but that might be counterproductive.

    https://twitter.com/ZemmourEric/status/1446366892541816844
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819
    The Guido page on James Brokenshire appears to be down. Perhaps there is hope?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,937

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
    Its a social science, but we're overly reliant upon assumption and models. As with anything using assumptions and models, it ends up a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    For virtually any position on anything it is possible to find an economist to argue on behalf of that position. It is equally possible to find an economist to argue against that position. Both will have models and evidence to support them, neither is lying, but both have chosen their own assumptions and those assumption will shape the output.

    Anyone who thinks they're right because they've seen an economic model that agrees with them . . . doesn't understand economics at all.
    If you can find some counter analysis, I’d be glad to see it. Or, if you can find flaws in the paper I posted that would also be interesting.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,937
    MattW said:

    Guido reporting that James Brokenshire has passed away.

    He has been off work with lung cancer.
    https://order-order.com/2021/10/08/breaking-james-brokenshire-passes-away/

    That’s terrible.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
    It's the 1% migration -> 0.86% improvement (so not really) with an estimate that then makes the figure look good that I love.

    Basically, as you say, our research doesn't match our preferred conclusion so we've bodged it to give the answer we want via assumptions to get our final estimate.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,116

    MattW said:

    Guido reporting that James Brokenshire has passed away.

    He has been off work with lung cancer.
    https://order-order.com/2021/10/08/breaking-james-brokenshire-passes-away/

    That’s terrible.
    That is so sad

    One of the good guys

    Love and sympathy to all his family
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,074
    edited October 8

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
    Not really. It's a very heavily cherrypicked sample.

    Who is this guy? It totally fails the smell test.

    Of the European Countries, they are *all* way below the EU average, which immediately undermines any conclusions he is trying to draw.



    https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=CAN~DEU~European+Union~SWE~IRL~NOR~JPN~SGP
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,116

    Eric Zemmour has issued a statement saying that France needs to assert the supremacy of French law and support Poland against the European Commission. The response from members of Macron's government has been to point out that this implies Frexit and treat it as a gotcha, but that might be counterproductive.

    https://twitter.com/ZemmourEric/status/1446366892541816844

    All is well in EU land then
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613
    edited October 8
    MattW said:

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
    Not really. It's a very heavily cherrypicked sample.

    Who is this guy?

    Of the European Countries, they are *all* way below the EU average, which immediately undermines any conclusions he is trying to draw.


    Not necessarily - the others [edit] with high scores may be doing the wrong things as well.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
    Its a social science, but we're overly reliant upon assumption and models. As with anything using assumptions and models, it ends up a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    For virtually any position on anything it is possible to find an economist to argue on behalf of that position. It is equally possible to find an economist to argue against that position. Both will have models and evidence to support them, neither is lying, but both have chosen their own assumptions and those assumption will shape the output.

    Anyone who thinks they're right because they've seen an economic model that agrees with them . . . doesn't understand economics at all.
    If you can find some counter analysis, I’d be glad to see it. Or, if you can find flaws in the paper I posted that would also be interesting.
    Given your reaction to my critique and destruction of the assumptions in the last paper you linked to I won't bother.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,053

    MattW said:

    Guido reporting that James Brokenshire has passed away.

    He has been off work with lung cancer.
    https://order-order.com/2021/10/08/breaking-james-brokenshire-passes-away/

    That’s terrible.
    That is awful, how tragic. RIP. He seemed a nice guy.

    I think I will avoid twitter and facebook for a couple of days.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,074

    kjh said:

    @Casino_Royale from last thread. Killing off the general discussion but on a separate note you seemed surprised that I thought I might be to the right of you on some things and asked for examples. Clearly it is difficult to give specifics without an in depth discussion but in general I get the impression you are a traditional Conservative, more along the lines of @HYUFD although not as traditional as him, whereas I am more along the lines of an Orange Booker. Although I have some humdinger arguments with @Philip_Thompson on many things my views are often in line with him, although maybe not quite as libertarian as him, I am very libertarian.

    Have I judged that correctly?

    I am often misjudged as being of the left because I attack the Conservatives often, but equally I don't support Labour. I have never voted Labour and I am 67 in a few weeks. I often feel traditional Conservatives come out with some staggering Socialist policies (not you, just in general).

    Thanks. So, you're very free-market then I presume?

    I consider myself to be a traditional shire Tory. I don't agree with anyone all of the time on anything but I think the poster on here that comes closest to my views is @Sean_F
    Yep very free market and small state. Like Philip I would like to see a Universal Wage. I was a fan of this from the 90s when I first heard it put forward by a right wing think tank. That could eliminate most of the DWP and much of HMRC. Not a fan of BEIS either. Far to much interference in the marketplace. I would like to see more generic laws and much less specific laws on issues. I hate the government faffing around an issue with interference. If something should be run by the state (eg health and education) then do so, otherwise leave it to the market, with generic laws to protect the consumer from abuse.

    I hate bureaucracy and state interference because they are useless at it, but accept it is needed, but as little as possible. Leave people to live their lives.

    I am also very, very socially liberal.

    I like SeanF a lot also, but I like the views of a range of people. I like TSE, Nigelb, IanB2, kinabalu etc so a wide selection across the spectrum

    Does this come as a surprise? What did you think my views were? I won't be offended if you though I was a raving Socialist.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    edited October 8

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    What an eclectic selection. But we've obviously had higher than most comparable nations worldwide (though not all), considerably in some cases, but in Europe the rate is not that different from the other big ones bar Germany.

    As a whole Europe including us look bad.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,074
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
    Not really. It's a very heavily cherrypicked sample.

    Who is this guy?

    Of the European Countries, they are *all* way below the EU average, which immediately undermines any conclusions he is trying to draw.


    Not necessarily - the others [edit] with high scores may be doing the wrong things as well.
    I'd take that - but then it becomes very misleading to make the point just about the UK.

    At best he has picked a tiny unrepresentative dataset of dissimilar countries, which will give very weak conclusions.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,759
    edited October 8

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....

    Priti Patel should should be ashamed
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,060

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    And a decade earlier Ken Livingstone was viewed as a possible "certainty" for a third term that was recommended should be backed at odds-on of 0.58/1
    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    Things can move quite significantly, can't they?
    So many political certainties have been overturned, not just in my lifetime, but even in the past decade.

    In 2010, few people would have dreamed that Kensington, Chingford, Epsom & Ewell would be marginal seats; that Canterbury, Enfield Southgate, Putney, Battersea, Reading East, would all be held by Labour when the Conservatives won a landslide. That Blyth Valley, Burnley, Durham NW, Leigh, Heywood & Middleton would go Conservative. That Stoke South, Warwickshire North, NW Leics would all be rock solid seats for the Tories. That a working class voter in Stoke would be more likely to be a Conservative than a banker in Central London.

    Things come fast.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,102

    Eric Zemmour has issued a statement saying that France needs to assert the supremacy of French law and support Poland against the European Commission. The response from members of Macron's government has been to point out that this implies Frexit and treat it as a gotcha, but that might be counterproductive.

    https://twitter.com/ZemmourEric/status/1446366892541816844

    All is well in EU land then
    Zemmour makes Trump look like a moderate.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
    Not really. It's a very heavily cherrypicked sample.

    Who is this guy?

    Of the European Countries, they are *all* way below the EU average, which immediately undermines any conclusions he is trying to draw.


    Not necessarily - the others [edit] with high scores may be doing the wrong things as well.
    I wouldn't be attacking the figures - as actually they don't matter. What matters is are there any lessons that can be learnt and there is at least 1 in that thread that seems worth following up. Early identification of significant symptoms that could result in death would result in earlier treatment which would result in the treatment being required being less severe, less medically intensive and reduce death figures.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,060
    Roger said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....

    Priti Patel should should be ashamed
    It proves how well-integrated they are.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
    Not really. It's a very heavily cherrypicked sample.

    Who is this guy?

    Of the European Countries, they are *all* way below the EU average, which immediately undermines any conclusions he is trying to draw.


    Not necessarily - the others [edit] with high scores may be doing the wrong things as well.
    I wouldn't be attacking the figures - as actually they don't matter. What matters is are there any lessons that can be learnt and there is at least 1 in that thread that seems worth following up. Early identification of significant symptoms that could result in death would result in earlier treatment which would result in the treatment being required being less severe, less medically intensive and reduce death figures.
    Quite so; that is the interesting part of the thread.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,937
    edited October 8
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
    Its a social science, but we're overly reliant upon assumption and models. As with anything using assumptions and models, it ends up a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    For virtually any position on anything it is possible to find an economist to argue on behalf of that position. It is equally possible to find an economist to argue against that position. Both will have models and evidence to support them, neither is lying, but both have chosen their own assumptions and those assumption will shape the output.

    Anyone who thinks they're right because they've seen an economic model that agrees with them . . . doesn't understand economics at all.
    If you can find some counter analysis, I’d be glad to see it. Or, if you can find flaws in the paper I posted that would also be interesting.
    Given your reaction to my critique and destruction of the assumptions in the last paper you linked to I won't bother.
    Your critique didn’t hold water, sadly.

    Edit/add: you also note that 0.86% growth is unimpressive but the new Tory consensus (TM) is that immigration causes a DECLINE in productivity.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    @Casino_Royale from last thread. Killing off the general discussion but on a separate note you seemed surprised that I thought I might be to the right of you on some things and asked for examples. Clearly it is difficult to give specifics without an in depth discussion but in general I get the impression you are a traditional Conservative, more along the lines of @HYUFD although not as traditional as him, whereas I am more along the lines of an Orange Booker. Although I have some humdinger arguments with @Philip_Thompson on many things my views are often in line with him, although maybe not quite as libertarian as him, I am very libertarian.

    Have I judged that correctly?

    I am often misjudged as being of the left because I attack the Conservatives often, but equally I don't support Labour. I have never voted Labour and I am 67 in a few weeks. I often feel traditional Conservatives come out with some staggering Socialist policies (not you, just in general).

    Thanks. So, you're very free-market then I presume?

    I consider myself to be a traditional shire Tory. I don't agree with anyone all of the time on anything but I think the poster on here that comes closest to my views is @Sean_F
    Yep very free market and small state. Like Philip I would like to see a Universal Wage. I was a fan of this from the 90s when I first heard it put forward by a right wing think tank. That could eliminate most of the DWP and much of HMRC. Not a fan of BEIS either. Far to much interference in the marketplace. I would like to see more generic laws and much less specific laws on issues. I hate the government faffing around an issue with interference. If something should be run by the state (eg health and education) then do so, otherwise leave it to the market, with generic laws to protect the consumer from abuse.

    I hate bureaucracy and state interference because they are useless at it, but accept it is needed, but as little as possible. Leave people to live their lives.

    I am also very, very socially liberal.

    I like SeanF a lot also, but I like the views of a range of people. I like TSE, Nigelb, IanB2, kinabalu etc so a wide selection across the spectrum

    Does this come as a surprise? What did you think my views were? I won't be offended if you though I was a raving Socialist.
    Thanks. Interesting.

    It comes as a surprise because almost all the posts of yours I can recall relate to social issues, institutions and the nation state, and that is where the zeitgeist currently is in political debate and where I suspect we diverge.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,731
    edited October 8

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
    Its a social science, but we're overly reliant upon assumption and models. As with anything using assumptions and models, it ends up a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    For virtually any position on anything it is possible to find an economist to argue on behalf of that position. It is equally possible to find an economist to argue against that position. Both will have models and evidence to support them, neither is lying, but both have chosen their own assumptions and those assumption will shape the output.

    Anyone who thinks they're right because they've seen an economic model that agrees with them . . . doesn't understand economics at all.
    If you can find some counter analysis, I’d be glad to see it. Or, if you can find flaws in the paper I posted that would also be interesting.
    From skim-reading it [its 50 pages so not read it all] the analysis has been underpinned by finding a correlation between increased immigration and increased productivity. As any fule kno though correlation != causation.

    Its entirely possible [indeed quite logical] that immigrants are attracted to increased productivity areas because that's where more jobs are available, rather than causing the increased productivity. Indeed its possible and undemonstrated either way that the increased productivity areas could have been even more productive if they weren't deflated by more minimum wage jobs.

    Simply finding a correlation isn't proof of anything in economics.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,858
    edited October 8
    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    And a decade earlier Ken Livingstone was viewed as a possible "certainty" for a third term that was recommended should be backed at odds-on of 0.58/1
    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    Things can move quite significantly, can't they?
    So many political certainties have been overturned, not just in my lifetime, but even in the past decade.

    In 2010, few people would have dreamed that Kensington, Chingford, Epsom & Ewell would be marginal seats; that Canterbury, Enfield Southgate, Putney, Battersea, Reading East, would all be held by Labour when the Conservatives won a landslide. That Blyth Valley, Burnley, Durham NW, Leigh, Heywood & Middleton would go Conservative. That Stoke South, Warwickshire North, NW Leics would all be rock solid seats for the Tories. That a working class voter in Stoke would be more likely to be a Conservative than a banker in Central London.

    Things come fast.
    Epsom and Ewell still has an almost 18,000 majority, Think you mean Esher and Walton!

    Almost all your list would apply to 2015 as well. Brexit changing (almost) everything?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,674
    MattW said:

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
    Not really. It's a very heavily cherrypicked sample.

    Who is this guy? It totally fails the smell test.

    Of the European Countries, they are *all* way below the EU average, which immediately undermines any conclusions he is trying to draw.
    ..
    Oh, okay. Let me rewrite my comment.

    "That agrees with my previously formed opinion that people ill with Covid were told to stay at home to save the NHS, so we failed to use the NHS to save as many lives as could be saved, and that generally the government's response was lacklustre, and they failed to take several steps today could have saved lives and reduced the economic damage."

    "That is pretty damning" was faster to type though.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    And a decade earlier Ken Livingstone was viewed as a possible "certainty" for a third term that was recommended should be backed at odds-on of 0.58/1
    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    Things can move quite significantly, can't they?
    So many political certainties have been overturned, not just in my lifetime, but even in the past decade.

    In 2010, few people would have dreamed that Kensington, Chingford, Epsom & Ewell would be marginal seats; that Canterbury, Enfield Southgate, Putney, Battersea, Reading East, would all be held by Labour when the Conservatives won a landslide. That Blyth Valley, Burnley, Durham NW, Leigh, Heywood & Middleton would go Conservative. That Stoke South, Warwickshire North, NW Leics would all be rock solid seats for the Tories. That a working class voter in Stoke would be more likely to be a Conservative than a banker in Central London.

    Things come fast.
    I find myself in a lonely spot.

    Socially, I have a very little in common with some of the most reliably Conservative voters now. However, politically, I have very little in common with the views of the professional class, where most of my network now sits.

    It's like everything I thought I knew has rotated about its base all around me, and it's rather disorientating.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613
    MattW said:


    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
    Not really. It's a very heavily cherrypicked sample.

    Who is this guy?

    Of the European Countries, they are *all* way below the EU average, which immediately undermines any conclusions he is trying to draw.


    Not necessarily - the others [edit] with high scores may be doing the wrong things as well.
    I'd take that - but then it becomes very misleading to make the point just about the UK.

    At best he has picked a tiny unrepresentative dataset of dissimilar countries, which will give very weak conclusions.
    The fact that they are dissimilar in nature may suggest that any similarities of approach (and differences, in this last, from the UK) are even more worth looking into. As eek says, that is the interesting part, rather than any league table.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,731
    Roger said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....

    Priti Patel should should be ashamed
    Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?

    There's a word for that.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,490
    Roger said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....

    Priti Patel should should be ashamed
    "immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party."
    And therefore the Tories are a bunch of deplorables? ??

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,060
    JohnO said:

    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    And a decade earlier Ken Livingstone was viewed as a possible "certainty" for a third term that was recommended should be backed at odds-on of 0.58/1
    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    Things can move quite significantly, can't they?
    So many political certainties have been overturned, not just in my lifetime, but even in the past decade.

    In 2010, few people would have dreamed that Kensington, Chingford, Epsom & Ewell would be marginal seats; that Canterbury, Enfield Southgate, Putney, Battersea, Reading East, would all be held by Labour when the Conservatives won a landslide. That Blyth Valley, Burnley, Durham NW, Leigh, Heywood & Middleton would go Conservative. That Stoke South, Warwickshire North, NW Leics would all be rock solid seats for the Tories. That a working class voter in Stoke would be more likely to be a Conservative than a banker in Central London.

    Things come fast.
    Epsom and Ewell still has an almost 18,000 majority, Think you mean Esher and Walton!
    My bad.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,053

    Roger said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....

    Priti Patel should should be ashamed
    Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?

    There's a word for that.
    Yes, racism.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,592
    Confirms Guido:

    NEW: Former Government minister and Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire, who had been suffering with lung cancer, has died aged 53, his family has said in a statement.

    https://twitter.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/1446423044210282510?s=20
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839

    Roger said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....

    Priti Patel should should be ashamed
    Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?

    There's a word for that.
    Nope, it's the "I'm alright, Jack" while not letting others have the same chance that is the issue there.

    On one level it's fully understandable, on another it feels utterly wrong
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,260
    edited October 8

    Confirms Guido:

    NEW: Former Government minister and Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire, who had been suffering with lung cancer, has died aged 53, his family has said in a statement.

    https://twitter.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/1446423044210282510?s=20

    Damn

    with Guido having taken the news down and nothing elsewhere there was a faint hope it was false news.

    That is sad. RIP.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,074
    edited October 8
    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
    Not really. It's a very heavily cherrypicked sample.

    Who is this guy?

    Of the European Countries, they are *all* way below the EU average, which immediately undermines any conclusions he is trying to draw.


    Not necessarily - the others [edit] with high scores may be doing the wrong things as well.
    I wouldn't be attacking the figures - as actually they don't matter. What matters is are there any lessons that can be learnt and there is at least 1 in that thread that seems worth following up. Early identification of significant symptoms that could result in death would result in earlier treatment which would result in the treatment being required being less severe, less medically intensive and reduce death figures.
    Quite so; that is the interesting part of the thread.
    There's no attack - just pointing out a questionable foundation.

    The strength of any conclusions are on the basis of the figures used.

    If the figures are not representative, then that is a questionable foundation for any conclusions.

    If he wants to make qualitative comparisons, fine. But then do not pretend that a peculiar selection of data gives objective conclusions.

    Unless the data is representative, a different skewed set of data can be selected and give different answers.

    eg If he chose Portgal, Belgium, Italy and Slovenia for his EU sample, then the conclusions would be different.

    It's just a skewed / partial (as in incomplete) analysis, when it could have been far better.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,731

    Confirms Guido:

    NEW: Former Government minister and Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire, who had been suffering with lung cancer, has died aged 53, his family has said in a statement.

    https://twitter.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/1446423044210282510?s=20

    Tragic. A non-smoker with lung cancer too.

    RIP.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158

    Confirms Guido:

    NEW: Former Government minister and Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire, who had been suffering with lung cancer, has died aged 53, his family has said in a statement.

    https://twitter.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/1446423044210282510?s=20

    Very sad news, RIP.

    He started his political career in Epping Forest Conservatives
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....

    Priti Patel should should be ashamed
    It proves how well-integrated they are.
    One fascinating feature of the next 20-30 years will be viewing how the politics of an increasingly racially mixed society evolves.

    I think many on the radical Left thinks minorities are a new base of allies who will give rise to permanent victory (replacing the WWC, who let them down) but I think their values are far more conservative, and as they cease to be minorities and become pluralities their voting behaviour will converge with the mean.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,209
    How long do we have to wait before talking about you know what?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,937

    Confirms Guido:

    NEW: Former Government minister and Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire, who had been suffering with lung cancer, has died aged 53, his family has said in a statement.

    https://twitter.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/1446423044210282510?s=20

    Very sad. Far too young, and he leaves a family behind. As someone noted above, one of the good guys too.

    Argh.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 96,672
    edited October 8
    Been messaged that James Brokenshire has died.

    Edit - Behind the curve.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839
    edited October 8

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
    Its a social science, but we're overly reliant upon assumption and models. As with anything using assumptions and models, it ends up a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    For virtually any position on anything it is possible to find an economist to argue on behalf of that position. It is equally possible to find an economist to argue against that position. Both will have models and evidence to support them, neither is lying, but both have chosen their own assumptions and those assumption will shape the output.

    Anyone who thinks they're right because they've seen an economic model that agrees with them . . . doesn't understand economics at all.
    If you can find some counter analysis, I’d be glad to see it. Or, if you can find flaws in the paper I posted that would also be interesting.
    Given your reaction to my critique and destruction of the assumptions in the last paper you linked to I won't bother.
    Your critique didn’t hold water, sadly.

    Edit/add: you also note that 0.86% growth is unimpressive but the new Tory consensus (TM) is that immigration causes a DECLINE in productivity.
    Oh it did but you were too blinkered to see the issue.

    As for this it depends on what you / they are measuring - if its GDP 1% increase in population with a 0.86% increase in productivity then GDP per capita is down and not up.

    And GDP per Capita is a way better indicator of real wealth compared to GDP as a whole.

    You also have the issue that Philip points out. If the migration is towards economically productive areas could that 1% in population growth be impacting productivity growth that would otherwise have been 2% (utterly unlikely but hard to disprove).
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,942
    eek said:

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    Yep - definitely something to be aware of when the next pandemic arrives - once you know what the important (killer) symptoms are ensure people get help early rather than late.
    Need to learn lessons about all of this. But I would just question measurement of deaths - other methods are available.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,060

    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    And a decade earlier Ken Livingstone was viewed as a possible "certainty" for a third term that was recommended should be backed at odds-on of 0.58/1
    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    Things can move quite significantly, can't they?
    So many political certainties have been overturned, not just in my lifetime, but even in the past decade.

    In 2010, few people would have dreamed that Kensington, Chingford, Epsom & Ewell would be marginal seats; that Canterbury, Enfield Southgate, Putney, Battersea, Reading East, would all be held by Labour when the Conservatives won a landslide. That Blyth Valley, Burnley, Durham NW, Leigh, Heywood & Middleton would go Conservative. That Stoke South, Warwickshire North, NW Leics would all be rock solid seats for the Tories. That a working class voter in Stoke would be more likely to be a Conservative than a banker in Central London.

    Things come fast.
    I find myself in a lonely spot.

    Socially, I have a very little in common with some of the most reliably Conservative voters now. However, politically, I have very little in common with the views of the professional class, where most of my network now sits.

    It's like everything I thought I knew has rotated about its base all around me, and it's rather disorientating.
    The professional people I mix with are almost all out of London, or on the very fringes of London, so we're mostly in tune politically.

    I do remember going to a party at Radcliffe Chambers about a week after the Brexit vote, and was asked how I voted by someone who simply took for granted that I had voted Remain, and was horrified to discover the awful truth. He was even more horrified to discover that about a third of those present, including a judge, had voted for Leave.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,074

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    @Casino_Royale from last thread. Killing off the general discussion but on a separate note you seemed surprised that I thought I might be to the right of you on some things and asked for examples. Clearly it is difficult to give specifics without an in depth discussion but in general I get the impression you are a traditional Conservative, more along the lines of @HYUFD although not as traditional as him, whereas I am more along the lines of an Orange Booker. Although I have some humdinger arguments with @Philip_Thompson on many things my views are often in line with him, although maybe not quite as libertarian as him, I am very libertarian.

    Have I judged that correctly?

    I am often misjudged as being of the left because I attack the Conservatives often, but equally I don't support Labour. I have never voted Labour and I am 67 in a few weeks. I often feel traditional Conservatives come out with some staggering Socialist policies (not you, just in general).

    Thanks. So, you're very free-market then I presume?

    I consider myself to be a traditional shire Tory. I don't agree with anyone all of the time on anything but I think the poster on here that comes closest to my views is @Sean_F
    Yep very free market and small state. Like Philip I would like to see a Universal Wage. I was a fan of this from the 90s when I first heard it put forward by a right wing think tank. That could eliminate most of the DWP and much of HMRC. Not a fan of BEIS either. Far to much interference in the marketplace. I would like to see more generic laws and much less specific laws on issues. I hate the government faffing around an issue with interference. If something should be run by the state (eg health and education) then do so, otherwise leave it to the market, with generic laws to protect the consumer from abuse.

    I hate bureaucracy and state interference because they are useless at it, but accept it is needed, but as little as possible. Leave people to live their lives.

    I am also very, very socially liberal.

    I like SeanF a lot also, but I like the views of a range of people. I like TSE, Nigelb, IanB2, kinabalu etc so a wide selection across the spectrum

    Does this come as a surprise? What did you think my views were? I won't be offended if you though I was a raving Socialist.
    Thanks. Interesting.

    It comes as a surprise because almost all the posts of yours I can recall relate to social issues, institutions and the nation state, and that is where the zeitgeist currently is in political debate and where I suspect we diverge.
    Oh that is very interesting. I have no idea what you are referring to re social issues and institutions. What did you have in mind? I am not a fan of institutions generally and I think you are, but I would be surprised if we differed much on social issues. Can you elaborate please? This is very interesting.

    Re nation state are you referring to my luke warm attachment to nations and my liking of the EU?

    I have to say it comes as a surprise that is how I come across. I thought I would come across as an Orange Book liberal, but often our own perception are different to what others see.

    I would love to know what @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD think I am with whom I have had many discussions.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,229

    Confirms Guido:

    NEW: Former Government minister and Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire, who had been suffering with lung cancer, has died aged 53, his family has said in a statement.

    https://twitter.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/1446423044210282510?s=20

    Very sad news.

    Once again goes to show that anyone can get cancer at any age and from any walk of life and not necessarily with the known "risk factors" present...

    RIP and thoughts with his family and friends.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,731
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
    Its a social science, but we're overly reliant upon assumption and models. As with anything using assumptions and models, it ends up a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    For virtually any position on anything it is possible to find an economist to argue on behalf of that position. It is equally possible to find an economist to argue against that position. Both will have models and evidence to support them, neither is lying, but both have chosen their own assumptions and those assumption will shape the output.

    Anyone who thinks they're right because they've seen an economic model that agrees with them . . . doesn't understand economics at all.
    If you can find some counter analysis, I’d be glad to see it. Or, if you can find flaws in the paper I posted that would also be interesting.
    Given your reaction to my critique and destruction of the assumptions in the last paper you linked to I won't bother.
    Indeed. GW has his predetermined views so will only see evidence that substantiates them.

    The reality is its impossible to know for certain one way or another. There is evidence pointing in both directions, so all we can do is make a call and wait and see.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    And a decade earlier Ken Livingstone was viewed as a possible "certainty" for a third term that was recommended should be backed at odds-on of 0.58/1
    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    Things can move quite significantly, can't they?
    So many political certainties have been overturned, not just in my lifetime, but even in the past decade.

    In 2010, few people would have dreamed that Kensington, Chingford, Epsom & Ewell would be marginal seats; that Canterbury, Enfield Southgate, Putney, Battersea, Reading East, would all be held by Labour when the Conservatives won a landslide. That Blyth Valley, Burnley, Durham NW, Leigh, Heywood & Middleton would go Conservative. That Stoke South, Warwickshire North, NW Leics would all be rock solid seats for the Tories. That a working class voter in Stoke would be more likely to be a Conservative than a banker in Central London.

    Things come fast.
    I find myself in a lonely spot.

    Socially, I have a very little in common with some of the most reliably Conservative voters now. However, politically, I have very little in common with the views of the professional class, where most of my network now sits.

    It's like everything I thought I knew has rotated about its base all around me, and it's rather disorientating.
    The professional people I mix with are almost all out of London, or on the very fringes of London, so we're mostly in tune politically.

    I do remember going to a party at Radcliffe Chambers about a week after the Brexit vote, and was asked how I voted by someone who simply took for granted that I had voted Remain, and was horrified to discover the awful truth. He was even more horrified to discover that about a third of those present, including a judge, had voted for Leave.
    My professional network is very central London, public-sector and relatively young - I had to listen to someone wax lyrical about structural racism, imperialism and capitalism last Thursday whilst keeping a straight face.

    I do have real conversations with people on a private 1:1 basis along the lines you discuss, and these reveal about 25-35% of my network secretly agree with me.
  • tlg86 said:

    How long do we have to wait before talking about you know what?

    Monday.

    Or earlier if a bookie puts up a market on it before then.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839

    Been messaged that James Brokenshire has died.

    Edit - Behind the curve.

    Only because Guido has no taste / decency and decided to announce it before the family got round to making it official.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,114

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Updated paper on economic impact of migration in the U.K.

    https://emckclac-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/k1638510_kcl_ac_uk/EZau8FMWb_RHoYcV4_LYnM4B2nSq5TiVW2KlH2Jg8wdRdg?e=XO4bbM

    Lots of good stuff in there.

    A 1% increase in migration is associated with an 0.86% improvement in productivity in the short term, and an estimated 1.6% improvement in the medium to long term.

    It is increasingly clear the wages in the U.K. have stagnated not because of immigration, but because of the global factors @rcs1000 cited last night, plus the sudden bust in financial services after the GFC and the decline in the U.K. oil industry.

    Indeed, immigration looks to have prevented even worse wage performance.

    😄😄😄

    It's laughable that you still believe this crap.
    It’s laughable to me that you’re not interested in research.

    Well not laughable, I find it a bit pathetic to be honest.
    It's someone's opinion based on a pre-determined conclusion. It's the same as all of those government COVID models that start with the conclusion of lockdown being the solution so let's fit the evidence to get a lockdown.

    They want immigration to be a net positive so they've fit the evidence to that conclusion. Economics isn't a science, it's people's opinions masquerading as such.
    Its a social science, but we're overly reliant upon assumption and models. As with anything using assumptions and models, it ends up a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    For virtually any position on anything it is possible to find an economist to argue on behalf of that position. It is equally possible to find an economist to argue against that position. Both will have models and evidence to support them, neither is lying, but both have chosen their own assumptions and those assumption will shape the output.

    Anyone who thinks they're right because they've seen an economic model that agrees with them . . . doesn't understand economics at all.
    If you can find some counter analysis, I’d be glad to see it. Or, if you can find flaws in the paper I posted that would also be interesting.
    From skim-reading it [its 50 pages so not read it all] the analysis has been underpinned by finding a correlation between increased immigration and increased productivity. As any fule kno though correlation != causation.

    Its entirely possible [indeed quite logical] that immigrants are attracted to increased productivity areas because that's where more jobs are available, rather than causing the increased productivity. Indeed its possible and undemonstrated either way that the increased productivity areas could have been even more productive if they weren't deflated by more minimum wage jobs.

    Simply finding a correlation isn't proof of anything in economics.
    A shift-share analysis attempts to attribute the evolution of economic measures to conditions. It's not a simple correlation and the fact that in the abstract they talk of short run and log-term impacts ought to have been enough for you to have paused and thought again before posting the above.
  • eek said:

    Been messaged that James Brokenshire has died.

    Edit - Behind the curve.

    Only because Guido has no taste / decency and decided to announce it before the family got round to making it official.
    The man is a sewer.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,592
    MattW said:


    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
    Not really. It's a very heavily cherrypicked sample.

    Who is this guy?

    Of the European Countries, they are *all* way below the EU average, which immediately undermines any conclusions he is trying to draw.


    Not necessarily - the others [edit] with high scores may be doing the wrong things as well.
    I'd take that - but then it becomes very misleading to make the point just about the UK.

    At best he has picked a tiny unrepresentative dataset of dissimilar countries, which will give very weak conclusions.
    Surely "excess deaths" is the metric we should be tracking, given the huge variability in testing between countries? On that measure the UK is not great, but not the worst:



    Cherry picking data to show "UK uniquely awful" rather undermines confidence in the rest of his argument....
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 1,470
    God, the James Brokenshire news is so desperately sad. RIP
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,018
    No age at all. How very sad.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,487

    eek said:

    Been messaged that James Brokenshire has died.

    Edit - Behind the curve.

    Only because Guido has no taste / decency and decided to announce it before the family got round to making it official.
    The man is a sewer.
    I disagree - that would imply that he takes the shit away
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.

    Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
    And a decade earlier Ken Livingstone was viewed as a possible "certainty" for a third term that was recommended should be backed at odds-on of 0.58/1
    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    Things can move quite significantly, can't they?
    So many political certainties have been overturned, not just in my lifetime, but even in the past decade.

    In 2010, few people would have dreamed that Kensington, Chingford, Epsom & Ewell would be marginal seats; that Canterbury, Enfield Southgate, Putney, Battersea, Reading East, would all be held by Labour when the Conservatives won a landslide. That Blyth Valley, Burnley, Durham NW, Leigh, Heywood & Middleton would go Conservative. That Stoke South, Warwickshire North, NW Leics would all be rock solid seats for the Tories. That a working class voter in Stoke would be more likely to be a Conservative than a banker in Central London.

    Things come fast.
    I find myself in a lonely spot.

    Socially, I have a very little in common with some of the most reliably Conservative voters now. However, politically, I have very little in common with the views of the professional class, where most of my network now sits.

    It's like everything I thought I knew has rotated about its base all around me, and it's rather disorientating.
    The professional people I mix with are almost all out of London, or on the very fringes of London, so we're mostly in tune politically.

    I do remember going to a party at Radcliffe Chambers about a week after the Brexit vote, and was asked how I voted by someone who simply took for granted that I had voted Remain, and was horrified to discover the awful truth. He was even more horrified to discover that about a third of those present, including a judge, had voted for Leave.
    My professional network is very central London, public-sector and relatively young - I had to listen to someone wax lyrical about structural racism, imperialism and capitalism last Thursday whilst keeping a straight face.

    I do have real conversations with people on a private 1:1 basis along the lines you discuss, and these reveal about 25-35% of my network secretly agree with me.
    A lot of people will put on a business face when discussion things - where business face means doing nothing to upset the consensus because it's not worth the grieve.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,942

    MattW said:

    Interesting thread. The 'far too early to tell' lads needn't bother looking at it.



    https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1445855098408734725?s=20

    That is pretty damning.
    Not really. It's a very heavily cherrypicked sample.

    Who is this guy? It totally fails the smell test.

    Of the European Countries, they are *all* way below the EU average, which immediately undermines any conclusions he is trying to draw.
    ..
    Oh, okay. Let me rewrite my comment.

    "That agrees with my previously formed opinion that people ill with Covid were told to stay at home to save the NHS, so we failed to use the NHS to save as many lives as could be saved, and that generally the government's response was lacklustre, and they failed to take several steps today could have saved lives and reduced the economic damage."

    "That is pretty damning" was faster to type though.
    Hindsight is great, and should inform future practice. We were dealing with a novel disease, and had scenes of overwhelmed hospitals in Italy. There was a general fear/belief that our NHS could be overwhelmed too, leading to more deaths than if it just about managed. This is the context for the 'stay at home' idea. It was probably wrong, and probably some died who might have lived, but the context for the decision is crucial to understand why it was made.

    I think the enquiry(ries) will be damning, but I hope they will also be fair, in that decisions were taken at the time, with the information at the time. Of course many on here will not agree. The government(s) all messed up to some extent. No-one has got this fully right. Our pain was the first part of the pandemic, while NZ say, has done superbly up to now, but will have a period of pain to come. But I would beg that criticisms are fair, and based on what was known/believed at the time.
  • I remember outing myself as a Tory in London in the early 2000s…..
Sign In or Register to comment.