Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The referendum will be decided by voters who don’t feel str

SystemSystem Posts: 11,004
edited May 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The referendum will be decided by voters who don’t feel strongly about it either way

Leave campaigners have been vehemently arguing that we urgently need to leave the EU for many years as a top priority.  Such is their vehemence and their prominence, it is easy to forget that this is a minority view.  Ipsos-MORI have been tracking what the public considers to be the important issues of the day for decades.  Most of the time, the EU languishes at about 10% naming it in the top th…

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,958
    edited May 2016
    First :)

    And paging kle4... a thread for the neutrals!
  • Options
    Darn it ..... second.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,958

    Darn it ..... second.

    Ahhhh yes. What a time to be alive.
  • Options
    RobD said:

    Darn it ..... second.

    Ahhhh yes. What a time to be alive awake you mean!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,958
    @peter_from_putney... yes, I am a cheating bastard living in my lovely GMT-7 time zone :)
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    RobD said:

    @peter_from_putney... yes, I am a cheating bastard living in my lovely GMT-7 time zone :)

    It's wonderful observing the insularity of some posters (who frequently protest their internationalist credentials) when they automatically assume everyone lives in their same GMT world and comment on how 'CCHQ had you up early this morning' (depending on which conspiracy they subscribe to.....)

    Meanwhile looks like 'SNP go Wild in Westminster' has some mileage left in it yet:

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/671300/SNP-MP-Angus-MacNeil-taxpayers-money-secret-mistress-Serena-Cowdy-Stewart-Hosie
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,958

    RobD said:

    @peter_from_putney... yes, I am a cheating bastard living in my lovely GMT-7 time zone :)

    It's wonderful observing the insularity of some posters (who frequently protest their internationalist credentials) when they automatically assume everyone lives in their same GMT world and comment on how 'CCHQ had you up early this morning' (depending on which conspiracy they subscribe to.....)

    Meanwhile looks like 'SNP go Wild in Westminster' has some mileage left in it yet:

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/671300/SNP-MP-Angus-MacNeil-taxpayers-money-secret-mistress-Serena-Cowdy-Stewart-Hosie
    CCHQ just bought me a ticket and sent me out here. Much cheaper than paying time and a half for those unsocial hours ;)
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    @peter_from_putney... yes, I am a cheating bastard living in my lovely GMT-7 time zone :)

    It's wonderful observing the insularity of some posters (who frequently protest their internationalist credentials) when they automatically assume everyone lives in their same GMT world and comment on how 'CCHQ had you up early this morning' (depending on which conspiracy they subscribe to.....)

    Meanwhile looks like 'SNP go Wild in Westminster' has some mileage left in it yet:

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/671300/SNP-MP-Angus-MacNeil-taxpayers-money-secret-mistress-Serena-Cowdy-Stewart-Hosie
    CCHQ just bought me a ticket and sent me out here. Much cheaper than paying time and a half for those unsocial hours ;)
    B*stards! They told me it was work experience and if I did a good job they'd move me to GMT-3!
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited May 2016
    I'm in the joyous departure lounge at Luton airport. Don't know where cchq are sending me to tinker with time zones on blogs.


    On topic, I would have thought the ramification of a low interest topic would be reflected in a low turnout. It depends if either side convince the great British public that there is a connection between EU and issues further up the concern ladder.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    Trouble at t'mill:

    It’s hard to believe Ms Sturgeon’s relationship with her party's deputy leader won’t be damaged by all this. But the party’s political strategy, too, could be impacted. Mr Hosie was, after all, mooted to be leading a summer initiative targeting No voters in a drive to push the case for independence. Such a move is seen as vital to retaining the support of the many Yes voters who joined the SNP after the referendum. Whether the initiative – or Mr Hosie's leadership of it – survives remains to be seen.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14499014.Herald_View__Fallout_from_SNP_sex_scandal_could_be_damaging/
  • Options
    Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Who was it who talked about "the most worthless votes of the most worthless people"?

    I'm sure AM is right. What may be of more interest is trying to determine how many % the Remainders have to win by before the Leavers stop crying "foul". Quite a lot, I'd imagine.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,958
    philiph said:

    I'm in the joyous departure lounge at Luton airport. Don't know where cchq are sending me to tinker with time zones on blogs.


    On topic, I would have thought the ramification of a low interest topic would be reflected in a low turnout. It depends if either side convince the great British public that there is a connection between EU and issues further up the concern ladder.

    Sorry old boy, off to Southern Thule with you. ;)
  • Options
    Did anyone notice the BES referendum survey of 20,000 voters? 10 to 20 times the sample size of other polls. LEAVE ahead, just.
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    RobD said:

    philiph said:

    I'm in the joyous departure lounge at Luton airport. Don't know where cchq are sending me to tinker with time zones on blogs.


    On topic, I would have thought the ramification of a low interest topic would be reflected in a low turnout. It depends if either side convince the great British public that there is a connection between EU and issues further up the concern ladder.

    Sorry old boy, off to Southern Thule with you. ;)
    Via Amsterdam, it appears!
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Did anyone notice the BES referendum survey of 20,000 voters? 10 to 20 times the sample size of other polls. LEAVE ahead, just.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-outcome-on-a-knife-edge-according-to-new-data-from-british-election-survey-a7034751.html


    Oh dear - a little bit economic with the truth. Obsession never a good thing.
  • Options
    shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    edited May 2016
    The cut through message is: Unrestricted Immigration is Bad for the Voter.



    By the way this is rather good. have you seen it?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pwXLtvt2w&feature=youtu.be
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    The "the EU isn't important, no one cites it as a top issue" is a complete misreading of the data.

    Sure few people put "the EU' as one of their issues. But when you think through what they actually care about - immigration is the obvious one - then when you consider solutions out relationship with the EU *has* to be part of the answer (whichever side of the argument you are on).

    Once people focus on a vote, and if they come to the conclusion that the EU is indelibly linked to an important issue then it becomes an important topic for them. That is, I think, what has happened here.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    From Times YouGov - inc method tweek weighting by GE2015, before change Remain 3 pts ahead rather than 4.

    Tories 50-50 Remain/Leave
    77 % Labour Remain
    64% Lib Dems Remain
    3% Ukip supporters

    60% ABC1 Remain
    41% C2DE
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Yesterday I had a rare experience of the Brexit referendum, a conversation about the referendum brought up spontaneously by one of our nurses (a Filipino, now British national). She is genuinely undecided. I am fairly sure that I clinched it for Remain by pointing out that that the £ would most likely drop further if we Leave. She is building a house in Manila for her retirement.

    I do think that the mocking of project Fear by Leave is having an effect, but not the one they intend. The meme is now established that Leave involves risk to both economy and peace.

    I am off to a LD StrongerIn meeting tonight, so shall see how things are going elsewhere in the Midlands.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Charles said:

    The "the EU isn't important, no one cites it as a top issue" is a complete misreading of the data.

    Sure few people put "the EU' as one of their issues. But when you think through what they actually care about - immigration is the obvious one - then when you consider solutions out relationship with the EU *has* to be part of the answer (whichever side of the argument you are on).

    Once people focus on a vote, and if they come to the conclusion that the EU is indelibly linked to an important issue then it becomes an important topic for them. That is, I think, what has happened here.

    Frankly, I don't think people are focusing upon the vote, most are sick and tired of hearing about it. When you here Boris ranting like a loony, and Dave talking nonsense, then for "good" measure you get the bar room bore Farage ranting, most sensible people switch off. Its got to the state that the truth has become lost, and in reality NOONE knows what would happen if we left.. Guesses can be made, but no one knows for sure.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Charles said:

    The "the EU isn't important, no one cites it as a top issue" is a complete misreading of the data.

    Sure few people put "the EU' as one of their issues. But when you think through what they actually care about - immigration is the obvious one - then when you consider solutions out relationship with the EU *has* to be part of the answer (whichever side of the argument you are on).

    Once people focus on a vote, and if they come to the conclusion that the EU is indelibly linked to an important issue then it becomes an important topic for them. That is, I think, what has happened here.

    We've been saying this for years and it still gets ignored. I don't know why they persist.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    So, some people will vote, some won't, others haven't decided. And the ones that haven't decided to vote haven't decided what to vote for.

    Thanks, I get it. Oh and well done for mentioning "xenophobic battiness".

    Vapid bilge.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    From Times YouGov - inc method tweek weighting by GE2015, before change Remain 3 pts ahead rather than 4.

    Tories 50-50 Remain/Leave
    77 % Labour Remain
    64% Lib Dems Remain
    3% Ukip supporters

    60% ABC1 Remain
    41% C2DE

    Yet we're told repeatedly Tories are overwhelmingly for Leave - and this is assuming YouGov online polling is reliable. Colour me unconvinced.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    felix said:

    From Times YouGov - inc method tweek weighting by GE2015, before change Remain 3 pts ahead rather than 4.

    Tories 50-50 Remain/Leave
    77 % Labour Remain
    64% Lib Dems Remain
    3% Ukip supporters

    60% ABC1 Remain
    41% C2DE

    Yet we're told repeatedly Tories are overwhelmingly for Leave - and this is assuming YouGov online polling is reliable. Colour me unconvinced.
    Tory voters are probably about 50/50, as are Tory MPs (after all they do like to be re-elected). It is the activists that split mostly for Leave. Interesting to see that 77% of Labour is for Remain. Leave is very heavily tied in with the Tory right and kippers, and pushing Labour to Remain on "the enemy of my enemy" principle.

  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    The "the EU isn't important, no one cites it as a top issue" is a complete misreading of the data.

    Sure few people put "the EU' as one of their issues. But when you think through what they actually care about - immigration is the obvious one - then when you consider solutions out relationship with the EU *has* to be part of the answer (whichever side of the argument you are on).

    Once people focus on a vote, and if they come to the conclusion that the EU is indelibly linked to an important issue then it becomes an important topic for them. That is, I think, what has happened here.

    Frankly, I don't think people are focusing upon the vote, most are sick and tired of hearing about it. When you here Boris ranting like a loony, and Dave talking nonsense, then for "good" measure you get the bar room bore Farage ranting, most sensible people switch off. Its got to the state that the truth has become lost, and in reality NOONE knows what would happen if we left.. Guesses can be made, but no one knows for sure.
    That's probably true. But people who say "no one puts the EU as top of their list of issues therefore no one cares" are simply wrong.

    It's like saying "no one cares about membership of the MPC, therefore no one cares about interest rate policy"
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The "the EU isn't important, no one cites it as a top issue" is a complete misreading of the data.

    Sure few people put "the EU' as one of their issues. But when you think through what they actually care about - immigration is the obvious one - then when you consider solutions out relationship with the EU *has* to be part of the answer (whichever side of the argument you are on).

    Once people focus on a vote, and if they come to the conclusion that the EU is indelibly linked to an important issue then it becomes an important topic for them. That is, I think, what has happened here.

    Frankly, I don't think people are focusing upon the vote, most are sick and tired of hearing about it. When you here Boris ranting like a loony, and Dave talking nonsense, then for "good" measure you get the bar room bore Farage ranting, most sensible people switch off. Its got to the state that the truth has become lost, and in reality NOONE knows what would happen if we left.. Guesses can be made, but no one knows for sure.
    That's probably true. But people who say "no one puts the EU as top of their list of issues therefore no one cares" are simply wrong.

    It's like saying "no one cares about membership of the MPC, therefore no one cares about interest rate policy"
    And yet, after months of having politicians bore off about the importance of the referendum, still 70% of the public obdurately refuse to name it as one of the three most important issues facing the country. Their false consciousness must be very strong indeed.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    shiney2 said:

    The cut through message is: Unrestricted Immigration is Bad for the Voter.



    By the way this is rather good. have you seen it?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pwXLtvt2w&feature=youtu.be

    MODS

    shiney2 posts this (at least once) every day - as it is consuming OGH bandwith, might I suggest it be treated as SPAM and removed, and further such posting stopped?
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited May 2016
    Ipsos Issues Index

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Images/Polls/Issues_Facing_Britain_April2016.JPG

    There is another graphic which shows what London thinks. It thinks it's the economy. Perhaps that's a problem?

    If you're obsessed with banks and financial institutions and instruments, do you forget society and the world most people inhabit and experience?

    Who's out of touch?
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    shiney2 said:

    The cut through message is: Unrestricted Immigration is Bad for the Voter.



    By the way this is rather good. have you seen it?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pwXLtvt2w&feature=youtu.be

    MODS

    shiney2 posts this (at least once) every day - as it is consuming OGH bandwith, might I suggest it be treated as SPAM and removed, and further such posting stopped?
    Seconded.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Mr Hosie was, after all, mooted to be leading a summer initiative targeting No voters in a drive to push the case for independence. Such a move is seen as vital to retaining the support of the many Yes voters who joined the SNP after the referendum. Whether the initiative – or Mr Hosie's leadership of it – survives remains to be seen.

    Surely Hosie is the perfect candidate to lead a campaign advocating divorce...

    Our Zoomer friends have been remarkably quiet about this story.

    Is that because with 2 MPs shagging the same woman, it falls under the SNP policy of "not criticising group decisions"?
  • Options
    shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672

    shiney2 said:

    The cut through message is: Unrestricted Immigration is Bad for the Voter.



    By the way this is rather good. have you seen it?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pwXLtvt2w&feature=youtu.be

    MODS

    shiney2 posts this (at least once) every day - as it is consuming OGH bandwith, might I suggest it be treated as SPAM and removed, and further such posting stopped?

    well stop reposting it then..

    btw, still waiting for your 'exposure' and 'contradiction'.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    I know Arsenal fans who obsess about the club all the time, bemoaning Wenger and wondering who we won't sign this summer. I don't because I realise life is too short to get bothered about such things. But when the game's on, for those 90 minutes, nothing else matters.

    I think it's the same with the EU. I want us to leave the EU. I'm even a member of Ukip. But if I was polled by Ipsos-Mori, our membership of the EU would not be my number 1 concern - apart from now. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, my number 1 concern will still be the public finances and that numpty in Number 11.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822

    shiney2 said:

    The cut through message is: Unrestricted Immigration is Bad for the Voter.



    By the way this is rather good. have you seen it?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pwXLtvt2w&feature=youtu.be

    MODS

    shiney2 posts this (at least once) every day - as it is consuming OGH bandwith, might I suggest it be treated as SPAM and removed, and further such posting stopped?
    You know that isn't true about bandwidth. Why not ignore it.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    Didn't there used to be a second question from Mori asking people to identify the most important issues facing you and your family? From memory, that often produced different results to the isdues facing Britain question.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    chestnut said:

    Ipsos Issues Index

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Images/Polls/Issues_Facing_Britain_April2016.JPG

    There is another graphic which shows what London thinks. It thinks it's the economy. Perhaps that's a problem?

    If you're obsessed with banks and financial institutions and instruments, do you forget society and the world most people inhabit and experience?

    Who's out of touch?

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    chestnut said:

    Ipsos Issues Index

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Images/Polls/Issues_Facing_Britain_April2016.JPG

    There is another graphic which shows what London thinks. It thinks it's the economy. Perhaps that's a problem?

    If you're obsessed with banks and financial institutions and instruments, do you forget society and the world most people inhabit and experience?

    Who's out of touch?

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.

    The simplest way to reverse migration is to crash the economy, increase unemployment, put up taxes and devalue the pound.

    It is quite possible to do, but may involve some hardship.
  • Options
    shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672

    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    chestnut said:

    Ipsos Issues Index

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Images/Polls/Issues_Facing_Britain_April2016.JPG

    There is another graphic which shows what London thinks. It thinks it's the economy. Perhaps that's a problem?

    If you're obsessed with banks and financial institutions and instruments, do you forget society and the world most people inhabit and experience?

    Who's out of touch?

    I think that's a key point. When I stopped commuting there, I realised that my neighbours didn't see London as the centre of the things, didn't identify with its residents, nor paid any attention to Tube strikes et al. I don't think I read a local paper or saw local news for 20yrs - then suddenly I realised all my neighbours did.

    That the London based media talk endlessly about it as if it represented the entire UK is very conspicuous. There's nothing more instructive than watching regional news outside your area - there's a whole country out there that most of us simply never see.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The "the EU isn't important, no one cites it as a top issue" is a complete misreading of the data.

    Sure few people put "the EU' as one of their issues. But when you think through what they actually care about - immigration is the obvious one - then when you consider solutions out relationship with the EU *has* to be part of the answer (whichever side of the argument you are on).

    Once people focus on a vote, and if they come to the conclusion that the EU is indelibly linked to an important issue then it becomes an important topic for them. That is, I think, what has happened here.

    Frankly, I don't think people are focusing upon the vote, most are sick and tired of hearing about it. When you here Boris ranting like a loony, and Dave talking nonsense, then for "good" measure you get the bar room bore Farage ranting, most sensible people switch off. Its got to the state that the truth has become lost, and in reality NOONE knows what would happen if we left.. Guesses can be made, but no one knows for sure.
    That's probably true. But people who say "no one puts the EU as top of their list of issues therefore no one cares" are simply wrong.

    It's like saying "no one cares about membership of the MPC, therefore no one cares about interest rate policy"
    And yet, after months of having politicians bore off about the importance of the referendum, still 70% of the public obdurately refuse to name it as one of the three most important issues facing the country. Their false consciousness must be very strong indeed.
    No, it's simply that most normal people care about outcomes, not structures.

    They have a problem and they identify that problem. They don't identify the "cause" of the problem.

    For instance, if someone is worried about crime they will typically say they are worried about crime. They won't say that they are concerned about the co-location of areas with materially divergent socio-economic characteristics even though this is one of the primary drives of (property) crime.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123
    Alastair is right that only about 30% of the population actually care about this. But that 30% will be about 50% of those who vote so their significance will be enhanced.

    In relation to the other 50% of those who will vote the key must be to persuade them that this vote is really about a topic they do care about. The problem is that both sides are seriously overselling their main strength. Who really believes that the average man or women in the street will even notice if we are in or out of the EU in 5 years? They will still go to Spain or Portugal for their holidays, they will still be driving an imported car, if they work for a business that trades with the EU they will still be doing so, there will still be very large numbers of immigrants coming into this country and life will go on pretty much as normal.

    In this context message discipline, particularly of the post apocalyptic kind, is perhaps not as important as it would be for a general election. Boris has the attraction of being likeable, funny and entertaining. It got Labour London to vote for him twice. It might happen again.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    shiney2 said:

    The cut through message is: Unrestricted Immigration is Bad for the Voter.



    By the way this is rather good. have you seen it?



    shiney2 posts this (at least once) every day - as it is consuming OGH bandwith, might I suggest it be treated as SPAM and removed, and further such posting stopped?

    I thought it was rather trite.

    But censoring people who disagree with you is not a good look.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited May 2016
    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    An ageing population. In the eighties and nineties the baby boomers were in their prime working years. As I pointed out previously the projected population increase by the ONS over the next decades has a stable working age population. The increase is nearly all in the elderly.
  • Options
    shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    That's fine.

    Oz and Canada have legislated and organized to arrive at an optimum level of immigration for themselves.

    We will no doubt arrive at a different figure that meets *our* people's needs (if the then UK gov wishes to be reelected).

  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,209

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    Noooooooo

    Not the Australia model blown out of the water,

    It was only a matter of time before someone actually looked at the facts I suppose.
  • Options
    CiceroCicero Posts: 2,198
    edited May 2016
    The rather strange Jacob Rees Mogg spent the weekend suggesting that the Tories would stay together post referendum because they would remain "courteous". Fast forward a couple of days and he has accused his leader of lying and demanded his resignation. It really is increasingly hard to see a post referendum forgive and forget amongst the Conservatives... Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch *popcorn*
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,262
    edited May 2016
    'Queen backs Brexit' headline in the Sun was inaccurate, press watchdog rules

    Newspaper made to print verdict of Independent Press Standards Organisation that followed complaint from Buckingham Palace

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/18/queen-backs-brexit-headline-in-the-sun-was-inaccurate-press-watchdog-rules
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    Because we have an ageing and more unproductive population. Before the boom of the late 80s there was mass unemployment. We don't have that now.

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,262
    edited May 2016

    Didn't there used to be a second question from Mori asking people to identify the most important issues facing you and your family? From memory, that often produced different results to the isdues facing Britain question.

    That's YouGov now and it does
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited May 2016
    There was once a poster Carlotta,

    Who thought Shiney a bit of a rotter,

    For the sake of Bandwidth,

    She said Censor Forthwith,

    The sites infested with Faragist Plotters.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    chestnut said:

    Ipsos Issues Index

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Images/Polls/Issues_Facing_Britain_April2016.JPG

    There is another graphic which shows what London thinks. It thinks it's the economy. Perhaps that's a problem?

    If you're obsessed with banks and financial institutions and instruments, do you forget society and the world most people inhabit and experience?

    Who's out of touch?

    I think that's a key point. When I stopped commuting there, I realised that my neighbours didn't see London as the centre of the things, didn't identify with its residents, nor paid any attention to Tube strikes et al. I don't think I read a local paper or saw local news for 20yrs - then suddenly I realised all my neighbours did.

    That the London based media talk endlessly about it as if it represented the entire UK is very conspicuous. There's nothing more instructive than watching regional news outside your area - there's a whole country out there that most of us simply never see.

    This is absolutely true. But it is also true that the British economy is very dependent on London and its overspill currently. Some people may see London as another country, but it is vital to the UK to an unhealthy extent. Part of the painful economic rebalancing we'll need to go through post-Brexit and with far lower levels of immigration is changing that.

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    TOPPING said:

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    Noooooooo

    Not the Australia model blown out of the water,

    It was only a matter of time before someone actually looked at the facts I suppose.
    Australia is a rapidly changing country, 28% of Australians were born overseas, the highest for 120 years:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3412.0Media Release12014-15?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3412.0&issue=2014-15&num=&view=

    "The number of Australian residents born in India has almost tripled over the last 10 years and residents born in China have more than doubled in this time."

    The change in our migrant mix can best be observed in the differences in median age of certain groups.

    "Migrants born in Italy, for example, had a median age of 64.7 years in 2005. This increased to 69.3 years in 2015 - indicating a drop in recent migration and the aging of existing migrants," said Ms Cho.

    "On the other hand, migrants from our Asian neighbours, such as India, have seen a reduction in median age from 37 years in 2005 to 33.4 years in 2015."
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Re US presidentials. Now could well be the time to back Trump again if you haven't already. His favourability ratings have improved somewhat (albeit from subterranean levels) over the last month and a half, and Hillary continues to under-perform. Nearly losing Kentucky? Not the sort of result she should be getting at this stage. Oregon more expected but still hardly impressive.

    More seriously, her net lead on favourability over Trump has been seriously eroded to the point where he's now within range. At the beginning of April, she held a 17% net lead over him, -14 to -31; that gap is now down to just 5.5%, -13.5 to -19. With five and a half months to go, that's far too close for confidence. Yes, she's still in the better position but Trump now has a viable path to the White House
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123
    Australia and Canada are for all practical purposes empty with ribbons of population around the coast and along the US border. Space is really not an issue, it is more what the economy can absorb at any particular time.

    The UK, and in particular England are not in that position. Hundreds of thousands of people coming to a country who find it impossible to build enough houses for its current population is a problem. We find it difficult to build the houses because to do so we have to give up more of our space and accept population densities that our traffic infrastructure cannot really cope with.

    But as I said earlier, the idea this is all going to magically change because we are not in the EU is, well, oversold.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    I believe the reason behind a points-based system is to sift based on quality, not quantity.

    Is there a qualitatitve difference between the Australian and UK net migration?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,258
    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    That's fine.

    Oz and Canada have legislated and organized to arrive at an optimum level of immigration for themselves.

    We will no doubt arrive at a different figure that meets *our* people's needs (if the then UK gov wishes to be reelected).

    Exactly. It's a mystery why so many Remainers seem to have a problem with this.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    Cicero said:

    The rather strange Jacob Rees Mogg spent the weekend suggesting that the Tories would stay together post referendum because they would remain "courteous". Fast forward a couple of days and he has accused his leader of lying and demanded his resignation. It really is increasingly hard to see a post referendum forgive and forget amongst the Conservatives... Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch *popcorn*

    I am surprised more hasn't been made of Piri Patel saying that George Osborne colluded with the IMF to bully us. Clearly, she can't work in the same government as GO post-referendum.

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:

    The cut through message is: Unrestricted Immigration is Bad for the Voter.



    By the way this is rather good. have you seen it?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pwXLtvt2w&feature=youtu.be

    MODS

    shiney2 posts this (at least once) every day - as it is consuming OGH bandwith, might I suggest it be treated as SPAM and removed, and further such posting stopped?

    well stop reposting it then..

    btw, still waiting for your 'exposure' and 'contradiction'.
    I have provided you with information.

    It is not my responsibility to provide you with understanding.....
  • Options
    The next edition of ZANews (south africas version of Spitting Image) should be entertaining.

    We might have the same soon except it would be an internal catfight among SNP MPs
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822

    Re US presidentials. Now could well be the time to back Trump again if you haven't already. His favourability ratings have improved somewhat (albeit from subterranean levels) over the last month and a half, and Hillary continues to under-perform. Nearly losing Kentucky? Not the sort of result she should be getting at this stage. Oregon more expected but still hardly impressive.

    More seriously, her net lead on favourability over Trump has been seriously eroded to the point where he's now within range. At the beginning of April, she held a 17% net lead over him, -14 to -31; that gap is now down to just 5.5%, -13.5 to -19. With five and a half months to go, that's far too close for confidence. Yes, she's still in the better position but Trump now has a viable path to the White House

    Kentucky was a great nail-biter - anyone know which state has been the tightest so far? No wonder Bernie is pushing on.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    Because we have an ageing and more unproductive population. Before the boom of the late 80s there was mass unemployment. We don't have that now.

    We've had an ageing population for about 250 years. Economic growth post 2000 has been pathetic by the standards of 1950-2000, notwithstanding the surge in immigration. My own view is that economic benefits of immigration are massively oversold.
  • Options
    shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672

    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    That's fine.

    Oz and Canada have legislated and organized to arrive at an optimum level of immigration for themselves.

    We will no doubt arrive at a different figure that meets *our* people's needs (if the then UK gov wishes to be reelected).

    Exactly. It's a mystery why so many Remainers seem to have a problem with this.

    Any system generates its own vested interests. The EU money redistribution system is no different except perhaps that it has concentrated on 'owning' opinion formers eg mandelson, clegg, kinnock and rest
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    An ageing population. In the eighties and nineties the baby boomers were in their prime working years. As I pointed out previously the projected population increase by the ONS over the next decades has a stable working age population. The increase is nearly all in the elderly.

    All Tory ministerial Leavers bought into a fiscal and economic policy predicated on high, ongoing levels of immigration; as did all Tory supporters who just a few months back were lauding the Chancellor and the PM. Not all were, of course. But it does seem that quite a few erstwhile loyalists have forgotten what it was they were supporting.

  • Options

    'Queen backs Brexit' headline in the Sun was inaccurate, press watchdog rules

    Newspaper made to print verdict of Independent Press Standards Organisation that followed complaint from Buckingham Palace

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/18/queen-backs-brexit-headline-in-the-sun-was-inaccurate-press-watchdog-rules

    Well they would say that, wouldn't they!
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    'Queen backs Brexit' headline in the Sun was inaccurate, press watchdog rules

    Newspaper made to print verdict of Independent Press Standards Organisation that followed complaint from Buckingham Palace

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/18/queen-backs-brexit-headline-in-the-sun-was-inaccurate-press-watchdog-rules

    Well they would say that, wouldn't they!

    Agreed - the Queen is clearly just another plucky outsider being victimised by the Establishment.

  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    An ageing population. In the eighties and nineties the baby boomers were in their prime working years. As I pointed out previously the projected population increase by the ONS over the next decades has a stable working age population. The increase is nearly all in the elderly.
    Surely the ageing population is a healthier and more productive one than those in the 1980s ?

    The kind that can wind down into it's retirement doing the kind of work that is often being done by new arrivals? A move to partial retirement rather than constantly shifting the retirement age is something worthy of consideration.

    The important thing with Australia is that they have control over both the quality and quantity of new arrivals, which they can adjust up and down according to their national need and situation.

    Introduce that and combine it with Cameron's intelligent approach to refugee settlement and we could have a more content society, and certainly one where it is much easier to plan public spending, infrastructure development and so on.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    That's fine.

    Oz and Canada have legislated and organized to arrive at an optimum level of immigration for themselves.

    We will no doubt arrive at a different figure that meets *our* people's needs (if the then UK gov wishes to be reelected).

    Exactly. It's a mystery why so many Remainers seem to have a problem with this.
    Some Leavers do too ...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    Sean_F said:

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    Because we have an ageing and more unproductive population. Before the boom of the late 80s there was mass unemployment. We don't have that now.

    We've had an ageing population for about 250 years. Economic growth post 2000 has been pathetic by the standards of 1950-2000, notwithstanding the surge in immigration. My own view is that economic benefits of immigration are massively oversold.
    Economic growth - on a per capita basis - has been pathetic across the developed world post-2000, irrespective of the levels of immigration*.

    * With the exception of resource exporters who benefited from the China led boom in oil, coal, etc prices.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    That's fine.

    Oz and Canada have legislated and organized to arrive at an optimum level of immigration for themselves.

    We will no doubt arrive at a different figure that meets *our* people's needs (if the then UK gov wishes to be reelected).

    Exactly. It's a mystery why so many Remainers seem to have a problem with this.

    Any system generates its own vested interests. The EU money redistribution system is no different except perhaps that it has concentrated on 'owning' opinion formers eg mandelson, clegg, kinnock and rest
    Quite. It generates its own lobbyists.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    I believe the reason behind a points-based system is to sift based on quality, not quantity.

    Is there a qualitatitve difference between the Australian and UK net migration?
    I think only about a quarter of Australian migrants come through on the point based system. Most, like with immigration from the Indian subcontinent to the UK, comes via family connections and the like.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    I believe the reason behind a points-based system is to sift based on quality, not quantity.

    Is there a qualitatitve difference between the Australian and UK net migration?
    There are some figures here, and evidence that many employers use skilled migration visas for unskilled jobs, indeed the authors make the case for increasing the number of unskilled migrants to reduce this abuse:

    https://theconversation.com/australia-has-outsourced-migration-policy-to-the-private-sector-30347

    European migrants in unskilled jobs often are in starter jobs, but actually are better qualified than the average. Not surprisingly many are now moving up the employment tree.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    Sean_F said:

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    Because we have an ageing and more unproductive population. Before the boom of the late 80s there was mass unemployment. We don't have that now.

    We've had an ageing population for about 250 years. Economic growth post 2000 has been pathetic by the standards of 1950-2000, notwithstanding the surge in immigration. My own view is that economic benefits of immigration are massively oversold.

    Yes, I know. And if I am not mistaken your view is also that public spending should be significantly lower than it is currently. You are consistent, though I am not sure your prospectus is one that would win majority support.

  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    The hyperbole from some politicians on the Remain side, e.g. the divisive Heseltine, is OTT. I don't understand the need for it, given that Remain are highly likely to win.

    BJ merely pointed out from a historical perspective that the EU is the continuation by other means of the desire of powerful French/German rulers to dominate the European continent from the time of the Holy Roman Empire. The German Drang nach Osten, which is so evident in the current attitude of the EU to territories in Eastern Europe, is many centuries old. The 3rd Reich was merely the most recent previous manifestation of this desire, and many of the leading economists and industrialists of this failed enterprise were among the founders of the EEC.

    It seems that the Remain campaigners wish to focus on economics, and obscure the fact that the fundamental question on 23/6/16 is whether the UK wishes to remain part of the project towards ever closer union, or detach itself from this megalithic scheme. The "status quo" option is not on the table.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123

    Re US presidentials. Now could well be the time to back Trump again if you haven't already. His favourability ratings have improved somewhat (albeit from subterranean levels) over the last month and a half, and Hillary continues to under-perform. Nearly losing Kentucky? Not the sort of result she should be getting at this stage. Oregon more expected but still hardly impressive.

    More seriously, her net lead on favourability over Trump has been seriously eroded to the point where he's now within range. At the beginning of April, she held a 17% net lead over him, -14 to -31; that gap is now down to just 5.5%, -13.5 to -19. With five and a half months to go, that's far too close for confidence. Yes, she's still in the better position but Trump now has a viable path to the White House

    Kentucky was a great nail-biter - anyone know which state has been the tightest so far? No wonder Bernie is pushing on.
    Last night over 2 States Bernie closed the gap in delegates by 4. He is currently 279 behind according to RCP. This is a ridiculous waste of time and energy.
  • Options

    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    That's fine.

    Oz and Canada have legislated and organized to arrive at an optimum level of immigration for themselves.

    We will no doubt arrive at a different figure that meets *our* people's needs (if the then UK gov wishes to be reelected).

    Exactly. It's a mystery why so many Remainers seem to have a problem with this.

    Any system generates its own vested interests. The EU money redistribution system is no different except perhaps that it has concentrated on 'owning' opinion formers eg mandelson, clegg, kinnock and rest
    Quite. It generates its own lobbyists.
    Who lose their EU pensions if they criticise the EU publically
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited May 2016
    No wonder Tory MPs are intending to rebel with Labour/SNPers. I hope its defeated. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/host-of-state-agencies-may-snoop-on-web-use-lvqw9c695

    HOffice wants to give Food Standards Agency, Gambling Commission, HSE and other public sector bodies the right to request internet data under the Investigatory Powers Bill.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    chestnut said:

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    An ageing population. In the eighties and nineties the baby boomers were in their prime working years. As I pointed out previously the projected population increase by the ONS over the next decades has a stable working age population. The increase is nearly all in the elderly.
    Surely the ageing population is a healthier and more productive one than those in the 1980s ?

    The kind that can wind down into it's retirement doing the kind of work that is often being done by new arrivals? A move to partial retirement rather than constantly shifting the retirement age is something worthy of consideration.

    The important thing with Australia is that they have control over both the quality and quantity of new arrivals, which they can adjust up and down according to their national need and situation.

    Introduce that and combine it with Cameron's intelligent approach to refugee settlement and we could have a more content society, and certainly one where it is much easier to plan public spending, infrastructure development and so on.

    If voting Leave to significantly reduce immigration is a vote for working into your 70s don't you think people should be told?

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited May 2016
    chestnut said:

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    An ageing population. In the eighties and nineties the baby boomers were in their prime working years. As I pointed out previously the projected population increase by the ONS over the next decades has a stable working age population. The increase is nearly all in the elderly.
    Surely the ageing population is a healthier and more productive one than those in the 1980s ?

    The kind that can wind down into it's retirement doing the kind of work that is often being done by new arrivals? A move to partial retirement rather than constantly shifting the retirement age is something worthy of consideration.

    The important thing with Australia is that they have control over both the quality and quantity of new arrivals, which they can adjust up and down according to their national need and situation.

    Introduce that and combine it with Cameron's intelligent approach to refugee settlement and we could have a more content society, and certainly one where it is much easier to plan public spending, infrastructure development and so on.
    No. The big increase in the elderly is mostly in the over 75's of whom 50% or so self describe as poor health.

    The move to flexible and later retirement is probably a good thing, but would have to involve much more working and much later retirement without migration.

    Automation and productivity increases can help with some tasks, but hard to see these helping much in the social care of the frail elderly. That is a job for human beings, and requires manual work and time, not easily robotised.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    An ageing population. In the eighties and nineties the baby boomers were in their prime working years. As I pointed out previously the projected population increase by the ONS over the next decades has a stable working age population. The increase is nearly all in the elderly.
    In which case the population will need to grow infinitely.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123
    edited May 2016

    chestnut said:

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    An ageing population. In the eighties and nineties the baby boomers were in their prime working years. As I pointed out previously the projected population increase by the ONS over the next decades has a stable working age population. The increase is nearly all in the elderly.
    Surely the ageing population is a healthier and more productive one than those in the 1980s ?

    The kind that can wind down into it's retirement doing the kind of work that is often being done by new arrivals? A move to partial retirement rather than constantly shifting the retirement age is something worthy of consideration.

    The important thing with Australia is that they have control over both the quality and quantity of new arrivals, which they can adjust up and down according to their national need and situation.

    Introduce that and combine it with Cameron's intelligent approach to refugee settlement and we could have a more content society, and certainly one where it is much easier to plan public spending, infrastructure development and so on.

    If voting Leave to significantly reduce immigration is a vote for working into your 70s don't you think people should be told?

    Do you really think those of us not fortunate enough to have a public sector pension will be doing anything else in or out of the EU?
  • Options
    daodao said:

    The hyperbole from some politicians on the Remain side, e.g. the divisive Heseltine, is OTT. I don't understand the need for it, given that Remain are highly likely to win.

    BJ merely pointed out from a historical perspective that the EU is the continuation by other means of the desire of powerful French/German rulers to dominate the European continent from the time of the Holy Roman Empire. The German Drang nach Osten, which is so evident in the current attitude of the EU to territories in Eastern Europe, is many centuries old. The 3rd Reich was merely the most recent previous manifestation of this desire, and many of the leading economists and industrialists of this failed enterprise were among the founders of the EEC.

    It seems that the Remain campaigners wish to focus on economics, and obscure the fact that the fundamental question on 23/6/16 is whether the UK wishes to remain part of the project towards ever closer union, or detach itself from this megalithic scheme. The "status quo" option is not on the table.

    The resction to Boris is precisely because he got this point across to the public in a couple of sentences with the H word ensuring maximum coverage in the media.

    Remainers do not like it up em and are alarmed and rattled at Boris ability and command of Language to get the message across to the public in a way that I dont think any other current po,itician can.

  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,578

    Cicero said:

    The rather strange Jacob Rees Mogg spent the weekend suggesting that the Tories would stay together post referendum because they would remain "courteous". Fast forward a couple of days and he has accused his leader of lying and demanded his resignation. It really is increasingly hard to see a post referendum forgive and forget amongst the Conservatives... Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch *popcorn*

    I am surprised more hasn't been made of Piri Patel saying that George Osborne colluded with the IMF to bully us. Clearly, she can't work in the same government as GO post-referendum.

    So you reckon Osborne will be on his way out then?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    Charles said:

    shiney2 said:

    The cut through message is: Unrestricted Immigration is Bad for the Voter.



    By the way this is rather good. have you seen it?



    shiney2 posts this (at least once) every day - as it is consuming OGH bandwith, might I suggest it be treated as SPAM and removed, and further such posting stopped?

    I thought it was rather trite.

    But censoring people who disagree with you is not a good look.
    If a different video was being posted day after day, then I agree, why not?

    But its the same video, day after day, sometimes multiple times a day......I don't know what you call that - I'd call it SPAM.....
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited May 2016
    DavidL said:

    Re US presidentials. Now could well be the time to back Trump again if you haven't already. His favourability ratings have improved somewhat (albeit from subterranean levels) over the last month and a half, and Hillary continues to under-perform. Nearly losing Kentucky? Not the sort of result she should be getting at this stage. Oregon more expected but still hardly impressive.

    More seriously, her net lead on favourability over Trump has been seriously eroded to the point where he's now within range. At the beginning of April, she held a 17% net lead over him, -14 to -31; that gap is now down to just 5.5%, -13.5 to -19. With five and a half months to go, that's far too close for confidence. Yes, she's still in the better position but Trump now has a viable path to the White House

    Kentucky was a great nail-biter - anyone know which state has been the tightest so far? No wonder Bernie is pushing on.
    Last night over 2 States Bernie closed the gap in delegates by 4. He is currently 279 behind according to RCP. This is a ridiculous waste of time and energy.
    He's pushing Hillary leftwards though - and it's a great last hurrah for his career. I wouldn't pack it in either!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123

    DavidL said:

    Re US presidentials. Now could well be the time to back Trump again if you haven't already. His favourability ratings have improved somewhat (albeit from subterranean levels) over the last month and a half, and Hillary continues to under-perform. Nearly losing Kentucky? Not the sort of result she should be getting at this stage. Oregon more expected but still hardly impressive.

    More seriously, her net lead on favourability over Trump has been seriously eroded to the point where he's now within range. At the beginning of April, she held a 17% net lead over him, -14 to -31; that gap is now down to just 5.5%, -13.5 to -19. With five and a half months to go, that's far too close for confidence. Yes, she's still in the better position but Trump now has a viable path to the White House

    Kentucky was a great nail-biter - anyone know which state has been the tightest so far? No wonder Bernie is pushing on.
    Last night over 2 States Bernie closed the gap in delegates by 4. He is currently 279 behind according to RCP. This is a ridiculous waste of time and energy.
    He's pushing Hillary leftwards though - and it's its a great last hurrah for his career. I wouldn't pack it in either!
    Hence the recovery for Trump. We both have money on him so we shouldn't complain but if I was a democrat in the States I would be seriously pissed by this self indulgence.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,262
    Ouch

    Manchester United manager Louis van Gaal is just like Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn... his rivals all want him to stay

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3595451/Manchester-United-manager-Louis-van-Gaal-just-like-Labour-leader-Jeremy-Corbyn-rivals-want-stay.html
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,258
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    Because we have an ageing and more unproductive population. Before the boom of the late 80s there was mass unemployment. We don't have that now.

    We've had an ageing population for about 250 years. Economic growth post 2000 has been pathetic by the standards of 1950-2000, notwithstanding the surge in immigration. My own view is that economic benefits of immigration are massively oversold.
    Economic growth - on a per capita basis - has been pathetic across the developed world post-2000, irrespective of the levels of immigration*.

    * With the exception of resource exporters who benefited from the China led boom in oil, coal, etc prices.
    I think that's spot on.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    DavidL said:

    Australia and Canada are for all practical purposes empty with ribbons of population around the coast and along the US border. Space is really not an issue, it is more what the economy can absorb at any particular time.

    The UK, and in particular England are not in that position. Hundreds of thousands of people coming to a country who find it impossible to build enough houses for its current population is a problem. We find it difficult to build the houses because to do so we have to give up more of our space and accept population densities that our traffic infrastructure cannot really cope with.

    But as I said earlier, the idea this is all going to magically change because we are not in the EU is, well, oversold.

    It sure is. But it's also true that there is plenty of space in England - especially in the north, where brownfield sites are plentiful. The problem is that London and the south-east are such a magnet. That is one of our huge challenges, whether in or out of the EU.

  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Sean_F said:

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    Because we have an ageing and more unproductive population. Before the boom of the late 80s there was mass unemployment. We don't have that now.

    We've had an ageing population for about 250 years. Economic growth post 2000 has been pathetic by the standards of 1950-2000, notwithstanding the surge in immigration. My own view is that economic benefits of immigration are massively oversold.
    The benefits are distorted enormously by high earning footballers and people working in the city. The benefit of low earning immigrants is highly debatable.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,578
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Re US presidentials. Now could well be the time to back Trump again if you haven't already. His favourability ratings have improved somewhat (albeit from subterranean levels) over the last month and a half, and Hillary continues to under-perform. Nearly losing Kentucky? Not the sort of result she should be getting at this stage. Oregon more expected but still hardly impressive.

    More seriously, her net lead on favourability over Trump has been seriously eroded to the point where he's now within range. At the beginning of April, she held a 17% net lead over him, -14 to -31; that gap is now down to just 5.5%, -13.5 to -19. With five and a half months to go, that's far too close for confidence. Yes, she's still in the better position but Trump now has a viable path to the White House

    Kentucky was a great nail-biter - anyone know which state has been the tightest so far? No wonder Bernie is pushing on.
    Last night over 2 States Bernie closed the gap in delegates by 4. He is currently 279 behind according to RCP. This is a ridiculous waste of time and energy.
    He's pushing Hillary leftwards though - and it's its a great last hurrah for his career. I wouldn't pack it in either!
    Hence the recovery for Trump. We both have money on him so we shouldn't complain but if I was a democrat in the States I would be seriously pissed by this self indulgence.
    If I was a Dem in the States I would be seriously pissed off that we didn't have a decent candidate seeking the nomination.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    An ageing population. In the eighties and nineties the baby boomers were in their prime working years. As I pointed out previously the projected population increase by the ONS over the next decades has a stable working age population. The increase is nearly all in the elderly.
    In which case the population will need to grow infinitely.

    No. The effect is to smooth out the baby boom, and relative baby shortage of the seventies and eighties, to a more even population pyramid, so no need for indefinite population growth.
  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    Cicero said:

    The rather strange Jacob Rees Mogg spent the weekend suggesting that the Tories would stay together post referendum because they would remain "courteous". Fast forward a couple of days and he has accused his leader of lying and demanded his resignation. It really is increasingly hard to see a post referendum forgive and forget amongst the Conservatives... Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch *popcorn*

    I am surprised more hasn't been made of Piri Patel saying that George Osborne colluded with the IMF to bully us. Clearly, she can't work in the same government as GO post-referendum.

    So you reckon Osborne will be on his way out then?

    If Leave win, as I expect them to, then unquestionably. Our government will move even further to the right.

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    An ageing population. In the eighties and nineties the baby boomers were in their prime working years. As I pointed out previously the projected population increase by the ONS over the next decades has a stable working age population. The increase is nearly all in the elderly.
    In which case the population will need to grow infinitely.

    No, you just need to keep the ratio of retirees and workers constant.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,258
    daodao said:

    The hyperbole from some politicians on the Remain side, e.g. the divisive Heseltine, is OTT. I don't understand the need for it, given that Remain are highly likely to win.

    BJ merely pointed out from a historical perspective that the EU is the continuation by other means of the desire of powerful French/German rulers to dominate the European continent from the time of the Holy Roman Empire. The German Drang nach Osten, which is so evident in the current attitude of the EU to territories in Eastern Europe, is many centuries old. The 3rd Reich was merely the most recent previous manifestation of this desire, and many of the leading economists and industrialists of this failed enterprise were among the founders of the EEC.

    It seems that the Remain campaigners wish to focus on economics, and obscure the fact that the fundamental question on 23/6/16 is whether the UK wishes to remain part of the project towards ever closer union, or detach itself from this megalithic scheme. The "status quo" option is not on the table.

    I think the Leave campaign may well succeed in reducing the margin of a Remain victory from something like the 62:38 slam dunk it looked like last year, with a decent renegotiation anticipated, to a fairly narrow and sullen margin of 54:46 due to the Government trying to take us all for fools, but still clinching it through Project terror.

    It's just a personal view but I doubt that is a healthy basis for our future relationship with the EU.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited May 2016

    daodao said:

    The hyperbole from some politicians on the Remain side, e.g. the divisive Heseltine, is OTT. I don't understand the need for it, given that Remain are highly likely to win.

    BJ merely pointed out from a historical perspective that the EU is the continuation by other means of the desire of powerful French/German rulers to dominate the European continent from the time of the Holy Roman Empire. The German Drang nach Osten, which is so evident in the current attitude of the EU to territories in Eastern Europe, is many centuries old. The 3rd Reich was merely the most recent previous manifestation of this desire, and many of the leading economists and industrialists of this failed enterprise were among the founders of the EEC.

    It seems that the Remain campaigners wish to focus on economics, and obscure the fact that the fundamental question on 23/6/16 is whether the UK wishes to remain part of the project towards ever closer union, or detach itself from this megalithic scheme. The "status quo" option is not on the table.

    The resction to Boris is precisely because he got this point across to the public in a couple of sentences with the H word ensuring maximum coverage in the media.

    Remainers do not like it up em and are alarmed and rattled at Boris ability and command of Language to get the message across to the public in a way that I dont think any other current po,itician can.

    Cameron's ISIS comment is another - he's destroying himself. I just want him gone. I don't believe a word he says, actually - I actively assume he's lying for his own ends. He's recycling the Bill of Rights yet again - 6 yrs on and nothing.

    This is just another example:

    "DAVID Cameron has abandoned his promise to enforce a new law to make Britain’s parliament supreme over Brussels - junking it from today’s Queen’s Speech.

    The Sun can reveal that a Sovereignty Bill - loudly trumpeted by the PM just three months ago - has now been quietly buried by No10. Mr Cameron pledged to bring in the law as a vital constitutional safeguard to curb the mushrooming powers of the European Court of Justice.

    On February 21, just two days after finishing his EU renegotiation, Mr Cameron told the Andrew Marr programme: “We are going to set out in the coming days proposals to make clear the British parliament is sovereign”. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7157359/David-Cameron-ditches-law-to-enshrine-UK-parliaments-sovereignty-over-Brussels-from-Queens-Speech.html
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    edited May 2016

    Sean_F said:

    chestnut said:

    What was the level of immigration twenty to thirty years ago during the 1980s and 1990s booms? Why does it need to be five/ten times higher now to stop the economy tanking?

    Because we have an ageing and more unproductive population. Before the boom of the late 80s there was mass unemployment. We don't have that now.

    We've had an ageing population for about 250 years. Economic growth post 2000 has been pathetic by the standards of 1950-2000, notwithstanding the surge in immigration. My own view is that economic benefits of immigration are massively oversold.
    The benefits are distorted enormously by high earning footballers and people working in the city. The benefit of low earning immigrants is highly debatable.
    The total earnings of foreign born footballers come to well under 0.1% of the total UK wage bill, so it isn't going to have any meaningful impact on the figures.
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    rcs1000 said:

    shiney2 said:


    SO

    The economy is kind of important. If we want to reduce immigration by any significant number we have to fundamentally rework ours.


    This is true.

    But I doubt it will take long.

    Most (almost all?) employers obey employment law. A points based immigration system applying to *all* employment visitors will sort it in short order.

    cf Australia.

    Australia had net immigration of 168 000 last year:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

    Australia has a population of 23 million, so equivalent to about half a million migrants re-based to a UK population. Australia with its points system has twice the percapita immigration that we do. I recall the figures for Canada are pretty similar.

    I believe the reason behind a points-based system is to sift based on quality, not quantity.

    Is there a qualitatitve difference between the Australian and UK net migration?
    I think only about a quarter of Australian migrants come through on the point based system. Most, like with immigration from the Indian subcontinent to the UK, comes via family connections and the like.
    What makes my blood boil is that if one of these illegals manages to make it to the UK, then is granted asylum, suddenly there's a myriad of family members who have to be allowed in because of the 'right to a family life'
This discussion has been closed.