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

RobD said:

peter_from_putney said:

Darn it ..... second.

Ahhhh yes. What a time to be alive awake you mean!

RobD said:

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

RobD said:

CarlottaVance 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

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.

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.

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.

felix said:

Plato_Says 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.

Charles said:

SquareRoot 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"

CarlottaVance said:

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.

CarlottaVance 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?

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?

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.

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

SquareRoot 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.

CarlottaVance 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.

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?

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?

TOPPING said:

foxinsoxuk 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.

shiney2 said:

foxinsoxuk 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).

shiney2 said:

CarlottaVance 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'.

david_herdson 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

Casino_Royale said:

shiney2 said:

foxinsoxuk 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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

'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

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver 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.

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk 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?

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver 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.

Plato_Says said:

david_herdson 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.

chestnut said:

foxinsoxuk 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.

SouthamObserver said:

chestnut said:

foxinsoxuk 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?

SouthamObserver said:

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.

DavidL said:

Plato_Says said:

david_herdson 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.

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.

DavidL said:

Plato_Says said:

DavidL said:

Plato_Says said:

david_herdson 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.

blackburn63 said:

foxinsoxuk 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.

In which case the population will need to grow infinitely.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

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.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk 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.