So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Be fair... Some Brexiteers explicitly wanted to replace Polish immigration with Indian immigration.
I think allowing only skilled immigration would be a somewhat better way of putting it. More engineers and doctors, fewer Big Issue sellers and car washers.
Break the power of Big Pharma's little runners called the BMA, put medics on the median wage, recruit medical students in the working class; then you could get more medics if that's what you want. Ones with a motivation that's different from lining their pockets and thinking they're God Almighty because they went to university, didn't do a proper academic degree, and 95% of the population think they've got a doctorate. Cuba seems to do OK. But no, better to import them from India, including ones - and I have experienced this personally in an A&E ward - who can't speak English properly (which doesn't stop them being cocky when you can't understand their pidgin) and who spend a lot of their time "signing off" what nurses have just done, usually by reading instructions off of a crib card.
''So you genuinely think that 50% of Hispanics are breaking for 'Build a wall, all Mexicans are rapists' Donald Trump?''
Agreed, and I'm surprised you guys didn't seize on it more.
There's been some interesting analysis of this very point. Summary was non-english speaking poorer Hispanics are breaking 90-10 for HRC. Lots of them in Nevada, so Trump is toast there. English speaking , Internet using more established Hispanics are closer to 60-40 HRC. NC/Florida has more of the latter , so could be a mistake to read across from Nevada.
The Latimes poll clearly has a panel made up of the latter, hence they are showing it close.
The early voting figures for Florida have been updated. As early voting concluded yesterday, these may be the final figures, but I'm not sure.
The overall Democrat lead is now 87,000, or 1.4% of those who have voted. Also, the total number who have voted early is about 6,420,000, which is more than three quarters of the total turnout in 2012.
Making the usual assumptions, that obviously means that to cancel out the Democrat lead Trump would have to be more than 4% ahead in voting on the day. In 2012 I think the Republican advantage on election day was about 0.7%. The change in the early voting percentages is about 1% in the Republicans' favour compared with 2012.
Or you could compare it to 2008 where Obama had a 9% lead that was brought down to 3% on Election Day. 2012 messes things up as more Dems voted on Election Day because of the shorter in-person. I'll check my spreadsheet when I'm home but IIRC Dem in-person was something like a drop from 1.3m in 2008 only 800K in 2012.
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
There are fewer differences with 2008. The main ones are the Dem VBM operation is much better (because of 2012 where they had to do well), and Dem registration is down. But the drop in registration would only account for at most half the lead fall, but the voters they lost aren't likely to have been motivated early voters in 2008 anyway so the impact is likely even less.
Well, we'll see soon enough - just as we saw what a large rise there was in the Democrat lead on Sunday! ;-)
Because only democrat counties were open, the total vote on Sunday was still small.
Lol amusing that the GOP controlled NC doesn't open their OWN polling places when the urban/democrat ones are.
I guess it gives them a big "on the day impression" that they're winning here.
Or is it because the faithful republicans are all in errm church ?
Because early voting in-person benefits democrats, including democrats in republican counties. There is no benefit for republicans keeping the polling station open longer than legally required.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Student places are limited. However, if there was that much demand then UK universities could increase the price for overseas students and invest more money into research or lower the burden for domestic students. The could also increase the supply of places, but that's limited by the size of the institution. Increasing prices is probably the best bet.
So no government control, then.
Who needs it?
Exactly!
But we're talking about people who will be paying upwards of £16k (or much higher in your scenario) per year, not those who earn the minimum wage and then receive far more I benefits and tax credits than they pay in per year. Even there a market solution is possible. I refer you to my Free Liberal Party manifesto.
That is an issue with the system not with immigration. Millions of Brits do exactly as you describe and unemployment is at a decadal low.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Student places are limited. However, if there was that much demand then UK universities could increase the price for overseas students and invest more money into research or lower the burden for domestic students. The could also increase the supply of places, but that's limited by the size of the institution. Increasing prices is probably the best bet.
So no government control, then.
Who needs it?
Exactly!
But we're talking about people who will be paying upwards of £16k (or much higher in your scenario) per year, not those who earn the minimum wage and then receive far more I benefits and tax credits than they pay in per year. Even there a market solution is possible. I refer you to my Free Liberal Party manifesto.
That is an issue with the system not with immigration. Millions of Brits do exactly as you describe and unemployment is at a decadal low.
Yes, many people have contested that the benefits system is set up wrongly, and cannot exist in tandem with a non permit type immigration system and legal equality. But when anyone actually talks about changing to a contributory system, the howling is unbearable.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Student places are limited. However, if there was that much demand then UK universities could increase the price for overseas students and invest more money into research or lower the burden for domestic students. The could also increase the supply of places, but that's limited by the size of the institution. Increasing prices is probably the best bet.
So no government control, then.
Who needs it?
Exactly!
But we're talking about people who will be paying upwards of £16k (or much higher in your scenario) per year, not those who earn the minimum wage and then receive far more I benefits and tax credits than they pay in per year. Even there a market solution is possible. I refer you to my Free Liberal Party manifesto.
That is an issue with the system not with immigration. Millions of Brits do exactly as you describe and unemployment is at a decadal low.
We have enough unskilled labour in the UK, no need to import more who are probably not net contributors. Also no need to give migrants access to the benefits system if theh are here solely to work. At least not for a couple of years.
The early voting figures for Florida have been updated. As early voting concluded yesterday, these may be the final figures, but I'm not sure.
The overall Democrat lead is now 87,000, or 1.4% of those who have voted. Also, the total number who have voted early is about 6,420,000, which is more than three quarters of the total turnout in 2012.
Making the usual assumptions, that obviously means that to cancel out the Democrat lead Trump would have to be more than 4% ahead in voting on the day. In 2012 I think the Republican advantage on election day was about 0.7%. The change in the early voting percentages is about 1% in the Republicans' favour compared with 2012.
Or you could compare it to 2008 where Obama had a 9% lead that was brought down to 3% on Election Day. 2012 messes things up as more Dems voted on Election Day because of the shorter in-person. I'll check my spreadsheet when I'm home but IIRC Dem in-person was something like a drop from 1.3m in 2008 only 800K in 2012.
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
There are fewer differences with 2008. The main ones are the Dem VBM operation is much better (because of 2012 where they had to do well), and Dem registration is down. But the drop in registration would only account for at most half the lead fall, but the voters they lost aren't likely to have been motivated early voters in 2008 anyway so the impact is likely even less.
Well, we'll see soon enough - just as we saw what a large rise there was in the Democrat lead on Sunday! ;-)
Because only democrat counties were open, the total vote on Sunday was still small.
It's just that earlier on you were saying how only a few counties would be voting yesterday, and the ones that would be didn't have a high AA population, so there's wouldn't be much of an impact. In fact, the Democrat lead went up by more than 50,000 yesterday.
I assume votecastr.us would be completely illegal under UK law ?
Possibly not illegal to actually run, but certainly illegal for any journalists or media outlets to mention while the polls are still open. It's basically live exit polling.
Theresa May has signalled she will offer "improvements" to the visa system if India offers help to return what could be thousands of overstayers in the UK.
I'm puzzled. How is India supposed to assist with removing illegal immigrants in Britain? Shouldn't that be the job of the Home Office? This sounds merely like an attempt to fob off the hard-Right, who are doubtless going to go into apoplexy when they learn of the proposed Indian immigration hike.
The early voting figures for Florida have been updated. As early voting concluded yesterday, these may be the final figures, but I'm not sure.
The overall Democrat lead is now 87,000, or 1.4% of those who have voted. Also, the total number who have voted early is about 6,420,000, which is more than three quarters of the total turnout in 2012.
Making the usual assumptions, that obviously means that to cancel out the Democrat lead Trump would have to be more than 4% ahead in voting on the day. In 2012 I think the Republican advantage on election day was about 0.7%. The change in the early voting percentages is about 1% in the Republicans' favour compared with 2012.
Or you could compare it to 2008 where Obama had a 9% lead that was brought down to 3% on Election Day. 2012 messes things up as more Dems voted on Election Day because of the shorter in-person. I'll check my spreadsheet when I'm home but IIRC Dem in-person was something like a drop from 1.3m in 2008 only 800K in 2012.
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
There are fewer differences with 2008. The main ones are the Dem VBM operation is much better (because of 2012 where they had to do well), and Dem registration is down. But the drop in registration would only account for at most half the lead fall, but the voters they lost aren't likely to have been motivated early voters in 2008 anyway so the impact is likely even less.
Well, we'll see soon enough - just as we saw what a large rise there was in the Democrat lead on Sunday! ;-)
Because only democrat counties were open, the total vote on Sunday was still small.
It's just that earlier on you were saying how only a few counties would be voting yesterday, and the ones that would be didn't have a high AA population, so there's wouldn't be much of an impact. In fact, the Democrat lead went up by more than 50,000 yesterday.
So perhaps a bit more caution is called for.
No that is your reading comprehension problem. If you look we were talking about impacting the number of AA voters, NOT Democratic voters.
This is Florida, Democratic counties = non-Cuban Hispanic, not necessarily AA. As I said I expected the Hispanic numbers to increase.
''So you genuinely think that 50% of Hispanics are breaking for 'Build a wall, all Mexicans are rapists' Donald Trump?''
Agreed, and I'm surprised you guys didn't seize on it more.
There's been some interesting analysis of this very point. Summary was non-english speaking poorer Hispanics are breaking 90-10 for HRC. Lots of them in Nevada, so Trump is toast there. English speaking , Internet using more established Hispanics are closer to 60-40 HRC. NC/Florida has more of the latter , so could be a mistake to read across from Nevada.
The Latimes poll clearly has a panel made up of the latter, hence they are showing it close.
Actually, it appears that Florida has a higher proportion of Spanish speakers than Nevada. In terms of language spoken at home, the figure for Nevada in 16.2% and that for Florida is 19.5% (though the first figure is from 2000 and the second from 2010).
The percentage of "linguistically isolated households", which is probably a reasonable indicator of how many people are likely to be missed from polls for language reasons, is 5.2% for Nevada and 5.8% for Florida (from the 2000 census).
It doesn't seem likely that that's the explanation for the difference.
[Edit: It's right that the figures are much lower for North Carolina - only 1.8% of households are linguistically isolated.]
''So you genuinely think that 50% of Hispanics are breaking for 'Build a wall, all Mexicans are rapists' Donald Trump?''
Agreed, and I'm surprised you guys didn't seize on it more.
There's been some interesting analysis of this very point. Summary was non-english speaking poorer Hispanics are breaking 90-10 for HRC. Lots of them in Nevada, so Trump is toast there. English speaking , Internet using more established Hispanics are closer to 60-40 HRC. NC/Florida has more of the latter , so could be a mistake to read across from Nevada.
The Latimes poll clearly has a panel made up of the latter, hence they are showing it close.
Actually, it appears that Florida has a higher proportion of Spanish speakers than Nevada. In terms of language spoken at home, the figure for Nevada in 16.2% and that for Florida is 19.5% (though the first figure is from 2000 and the second from 2010).
The percentage of "linguistically isolated households", which is probably a reasonable indicator of how many people are likely to be missed from polls for language reasons, is 5.2% for Nevada and 5.8% for Florida (from the 2000 census).
It doesn't seem likely that that's the explanation for the difference.
Hasten to add it's not my theory, but made some sense. So looking @ demographics Check these comparisons out.
Perhaps it's just a Mexican anti-Trump thing after his rapist comments. Mexican orgins FL = 14% , NV =78%
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
There are fewer differences with 2008. The main ones are the Dem VBM operation is much better (because of 2012 where they had to do well), and Dem registration is down. But the drop in registration would only account for at most half the lead fall, but the voters they lost aren't likely to have been motivated early voters in 2008 anyway so the impact is likely even less.
Well, we'll see soon enough - just as we saw what a large rise there was in the Democrat lead on Sunday! ;-)
Because only democrat counties were open, the total vote on Sunday was still small.
It's just that earlier on you were saying how only a few counties would be voting yesterday, and the ones that would be didn't have a high AA population, so there's wouldn't be much of an impact. In fact, the Democrat lead went up by more than 50,000 yesterday.
So perhaps a bit more caution is called for.
No that is your reading comprehension problem. If you look we were talking about impacting the number of AA voters, NOT Democratic voters.
This is Florida, Democratic counties = non-Cuban Hispanic, not necessarily AA. As I said I expected the Hispanic numbers to increase.
Well, we haven't seen any figures for African American voters yesterday, so we don't know whether you were right or wrong about that. But are you really saying you were right when you said the total vote on Sunday would be "much smaller" than on other days? That's very difficult to believe, considering the huge rise in the Democratic lead.
''So you genuinely think that 50% of Hispanics are breaking for 'Build a wall, all Mexicans are rapists' Donald Trump?''
Agreed, and I'm surprised you guys didn't seize on it more.
There's been some interesting analysis of this very point. Summary was non-english speaking poorer Hispanics are breaking 90-10 for HRC. Lots of them in Nevada, so Trump is toast there. English speaking , Internet using more established Hispanics are closer to 60-40 HRC. NC/Florida has more of the latter , so could be a mistake to read across from Nevada.
The Latimes poll clearly has a panel made up of the latter, hence they are showing it close.
Actually, it appears that Florida has a higher proportion of Spanish speakers than Nevada. In terms of language spoken at home, the figure for Nevada in 16.2% and that for Florida is 19.5% (though the first figure is from 2000 and the second from 2010).
The percentage of "linguistically isolated households", which is probably a reasonable indicator of how many people are likely to be missed from polls for language reasons, is 5.2% for Nevada and 5.8% for Florida (from the 2000 census).
It doesn't seem likely that that's the explanation for the difference.
Hasten to add it's not my theory, but made some sense. So looking @ demographics Check these comparisons out.
Perhaps it's just a Mexican anti-Trump thing after his rapist comments. Mexican orgins FL = 14% , NV =78%
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
There are fewer differences with 2008. The main ones are the Dem VBM operation is much better (because of 2012 where they had to do well), and Dem registration is down. But the drop in registration would only account for at most half the lead fall, but the voters they lost aren't likely to have been motivated early voters in 2008 anyway so the impact is likely even less.
Well, we'll see soon enough - just as we saw what a large rise there was in the Democrat lead on Sunday! ;-)
Because only democrat counties were open, the total vote on Sunday was still small.
It's just that earlier on you were saying how only a few counties would be voting yesterday, and the ones that would be didn't have a high AA population, so there's wouldn't be much of an impact. In fact, the Democrat lead went up by more than 50,000 yesterday.
So perhaps a bit more caution is called for.
No that is your reading comprehension problem. If you look we were talking about impacting the number of AA voters, NOT Democratic voters.
This is Florida, Democratic counties = non-Cuban Hispanic, not necessarily AA. As I said I expected the Hispanic numbers to increase.
Well, we haven't seen any figures for African American voters yesterday, so we don't know whether you were right or wrong about that. But are you really saying you were right when you said the total vote on Sunday would be "much smaller" than on other days? That's very difficult to believe, considering the huge rise in the Democratic lead.
??
Since only heavily democratic counties were voting it is quite easy to build up a big lead despite fewer people voting.
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
There are fewer differences with 2008. The main ones are the Dem VBM operation is much better (because of 2012 where they had to do well), and Dem registration is down. But the drop in registration would only account for at most half the lead fall, but the voters they lost aren't likely to have been motivated early voters in 2008 anyway so the impact is likely even less.
Well, we'll see soon enough - just as we saw what a large rise there was in the Democrat lead on Sunday! ;-)
Because only democrat counties were open, the total vote on Sunday was still small.
It's just that earlier on you were saying how only a few counties would be voting yesterday, and the ones that would be didn't have a high AA population, so there's wouldn't be much of an impact. In fact, the Democrat lead went up by more than 50,000 yesterday.
So perhaps a bit more caution is called for.
No that is your reading comprehension problem. If you look we were talking about impacting the number of AA voters, NOT Democratic voters.
This is Florida, Democratic counties = non-Cuban Hispanic, not necessarily AA. As I said I expected the Hispanic numbers to increase.
Well, we haven't seen any figures for African American voters yesterday, so we don't know whether you were right or wrong about that. But are you really saying you were right when you said the total vote on Sunday would be "much smaller" than on other days? That's very difficult to believe, considering the huge rise in the Democratic lead.
??
Since only heavily democratic counties were voting it is quite easy to build up a big lead despite fewer people voting.
But did fewer people vote, given that records were broken in the counties that voted, and polling hours had to be extended to satisfy the demand? I don't have the figures, but I guess you do.
I vaguely remember that in 2011 student fees debt was reclassified as deferred taxation and no longer included in household debts.
Am I right and what effect would this have had on the current numbers (I even more vaguely think it was a total of about £20bn in 2011 but would obviously be much larger now) ?
If RCS or some other knowledgeable PBer could help ...
You are correct; government backed student loans are not included in the debt numbers. I can't remember the current outstanding figure.
Thanks.
Its very difficult to find the numbers anywhere. Considering how large the total tuition fee debt must now be that's surprising.
Comments
What a resource.
Summary was non-english speaking poorer Hispanics are breaking 90-10 for HRC.
Lots of them in Nevada, so Trump is toast there.
English speaking , Internet using more established Hispanics are closer to 60-40 HRC.
NC/Florida has more of the latter , so could be a mistake to read across from Nevada.
The Latimes poll clearly has a panel made up of the latter, hence they are showing it close.
That's logic eh
So perhaps a bit more caution is called for.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/07/india-tells-theresa-may-to-grant-more-student-visas-as-part-of-t/
I'm puzzled. How is India supposed to assist with removing illegal immigrants in Britain? Shouldn't that be the job of the Home Office? This sounds merely like an attempt to fob off the hard-Right, who are doubtless going to go into apoplexy when they learn of the proposed Indian immigration hike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Israeli_legislative_election,_2015
People can be quite shy about supporting hard right wall builders !
This is Florida, Democratic counties = non-Cuban Hispanic, not necessarily AA. As I said I expected the Hispanic numbers to increase.
The percentage of "linguistically isolated households", which is probably a reasonable indicator of how many people are likely to be missed from polls for language reasons, is 5.2% for Nevada and 5.8% for Florida (from the 2000 census).
It doesn't seem likely that that's the explanation for the difference.
[Edit: It's right that the figures are much lower for North Carolina - only 1.8% of households are linguistically isolated.]
So looking @ demographics Check these comparisons out.
Perhaps it's just a Mexican anti-Trump thing after his rapist comments.
Mexican orgins FL = 14% , NV =78%
http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/state/fl/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/state/nv/
Can't find a link now, but there was a Cuban/Florida poll which had Trump ahead.
Cuban's have always leaned Rep obviously.
Since only heavily democratic counties were voting it is quite easy to build up a big lead despite fewer people voting.
As to the parties.....god knows?
Its very difficult to find the numbers anywhere. Considering how large the total tuition fee debt must now be that's surprising.