politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New Ipsos-MORI polling finds voters have become more positive

First! Like Mrs May....

Elliot said:

I have long believed people would become more positive and comfortable with immigration when the numbers are brought down and it's limited to the high skilled. I often wonder whether the way to drop the net immigration target is to break immigration numbers into high vs low skilled, with separate targets.

And then use some kind of system to denote those immigrants who are low skilled, a badge or something.

TOPPING said:

Elliot said:

I have long believed people would become more positive and comfortable with immigration when the numbers are brought down and it's limited to the high skilled. I often wonder whether the way to drop the net immigration target is to break immigration numbers into high vs low skilled, with separate targets.

And then use some kind of system to denote those immigrants who are low skilled, a badge or something.

What a stupid thing to say.

I have to say although corbyn might be the left wing trump, one thing I don’t think we will see is a porn star claiming he hired her services.

Canada and Italy join the expulsions. Sky saying this is a real crisis for Putin as he did not expect such unity across the west

TOPPING said:

Elliot said:

I have long believed people would become more positive and comfortable with immigration when the numbers are brought down and it's limited to the high skilled. I often wonder whether the way to drop the net immigration target is to break immigration numbers into high vs low skilled, with separate targets.

And then use some kind of system to denote those immigrants who are low skilled, a badge or something.

I'm getting worried for you Topping,leave the EU seems to be sending you off the scale.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Canada and Italy join the expulsions. Sky saying this is a real crisis for Putin as he did not expect such unity across the west

As I said on the previous thread:

Not a good couple of days for Labour or Putin.

A large chunk of the western world appears to agree with the assessment of the evidence that Russia is the only plausible culprit in Salisbury.

It is gratifying that the use of chemical weapons garners a wide reaction. I suspect Putin is somewhat eyebrows raised and taken aback by the breadth of the action against Russia. The argument that he needs to be inserted in his box in a peaceful way is strong. I guess this is a first step.

This is an unhelpful development for Jeremy who is finding all his utterances over this contradicted by the Nations' allies from all over.

Combined with the outrageous insinuation by Jews that he may be Racist, I mean, how unimaginable that a member if the Labour party could be accused of Racism!

There is a lot of pretty accurate shovelling into the fan and the output isn't spreading, it's focussing on poor persecuted kind and honest Jezza

They should get FIFA to join in.

A combination of some Remain voters having increased sympathy for immigrants and some Leave voters trying to persuade themselves the vote wasn't an anti-immigrant vote.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Immigration is not just about numbers, it is about control.

The perception is that New Labour didn't just increase immigration, it lost track of who it was letting in and who was overstaying.

+1

DecrepitJohnL said:

Elliot said:

I have long believed people would become more positive and comfortable with immigration when the numbers are brought down and it's limited to the high skilled. I often wonder whether the way to drop the net immigration target is to break immigration numbers into high vs low skilled, with separate targets.

You could as easily argue that the other way, and say that skilled immigrants are taking tradesmen's jobs, that foreign doctors reduce native [many non-white btw] kids' prospects, but that no-one cares about unskilled fruit-pickers and car-washers.

Most of the polling and economic analyses suggests the opposite. I don't think many people opppose letting in foreign doctors (providing they speak English!)

AlastairMeeks said:

A combination of some Remain voters having increased sympathy for immigrants and some Leave voters trying to persuade themselves the vote wasn't an anti-immigrant vote.

I think there's something else going on. Many people have been forced to have the "I don't mean you!" conversation because of Brexit.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Bit sleepy, and clumsily discovered it's possible to put My Documents in the recycling bin.

Was quite relieved to also discover they can be retrieved.

Tykejohnno said:

TOPPING said:

Elliot said:

I have long believed people would become more positive and comfortable with immigration when the numbers are brought down and it's limited to the high skilled. I often wonder whether the way to drop the net immigration target is to break immigration numbers into high vs low skilled, with separate targets.

And then use some kind of system to denote those immigrants who are low skilled, a badge or something.

I'm getting worried for you Topping,leave the EU seems to be sending you off the scale.

People apparently like high skilled immigrants and don't like low skilled immigrants. How are the poor people of the UK to know whether, given a random immigrant, they should like or dislike them?

TOPPING said:

Tykejohnno said:

TOPPING said:

Elliot said:

I have long believed people would become more positive and comfortable with immigration when the numbers are brought down and it's limited to the high skilled. I often wonder whether the way to drop the net immigration target is to break immigration numbers into high vs low skilled, with separate targets.

And then use some kind of system to denote those immigrants who are low skilled, a badge or something.

I'm getting worried for you Topping,leave the EU seems to be sending you off the scale.

People apparently like high skilled immigrants and don't like low skilled immigrants. How are the poor people of the UK to know whether, given a random immigrant, they should like or dislike them?

You are again falling into the trap of equating the overall scale of something with dislike of the individuals involved. Just because I think we need to stop recruiting middle managers at my workplace does not mean I dislike the individuals doing the job.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Canada and Italy join the expulsions. Sky saying this is a real crisis for Putin as he did not expect such unity across the west

Good. Leaders around the world need to know that the use of NBC weapons will lead to consequences. It seems 'we' may finally be reacting well to such usage.

It's a shame we didn't react after Halabja or Ghouta, but hopefully a precedent for action has been made.

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Tykejohnno said:

TOPPING said:

Elliot said:

I have long believed people would become more positive and comfortable with immigration when the numbers are brought down and it's limited to the high skilled. I often wonder whether the way to drop the net immigration target is to break immigration numbers into high vs low skilled, with separate targets.

And then use some kind of system to denote those immigrants who are low skilled, a badge or something.

I'm getting worried for you Topping,leave the EU seems to be sending you off the scale.

People apparently like high skilled immigrants and don't like low skilled immigrants. How are the poor people of the UK to know whether, given a random immigrant, they should like or dislike them?

Presumably the immigration rules of the House of Elliot are reciprocal - the low-skilled get grounded, while the high-skilled are free to go.

Yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable countries like Australia allow greater access to the high skilled than the low skilled.

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Canada and Italy join the expulsions. Sky saying this is a real crisis for Putin as he did not expect such unity across the west

Good. Leaders around the world need to know that the use of NBC weapons will lead to consequences. It seems 'we' may finally be reacting well to such usage.

It's a shame we didn't react after Halabja or Ghouta, but hopefully a precedent for action has been made.

Quite. How will Russia respond? If it tries to go tit for tat, that's a lot of expulsions coming up.

felix said:

TOPPING said:

Elliot said:

I have long believed people would become more positive and comfortable with immigration when the numbers are brought down and it's limited to the high skilled. I often wonder whether the way to drop the net immigration target is to break immigration numbers into high vs low skilled, with separate targets.

And then use some kind of system to denote those immigrants who are low skilled, a badge or something.

I'm sure Jeremy Corby would be happy to suggest a design.

He supports Arsenal, that will be enough for many.

Really surprised to hear of the breadth of expulsions. Must admit, I'm a bit surprised any other countries are doing it, but great to see that they are.

Morris_Dancer said:

Really surprised to hear of the breadth of expulsions. Must admit, I'm a bit surprised any other countries are doing it, but great to see that they are.

It's also good excuse for a clearout.

What is it with the Republican party's desire to troll the electorate ?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/26/west-virginia-senate-don-blankenship-2018-217703
Don Blankenship went to prison after the deaths of 29 of his miners. For some Republicans, that’s the beginning of a successful Senate campaign....

This graphic might be of interest given the gambling and polling interest here:
https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/978249963476893696

Elliot said:

I agree with your first point. High skilled family migrants should be classed as high skilled. If only for academic reasons we should at least record the data. We could also assess how many go into high skilled work.

Non-medical care work and domestic service seem like things highly suitable for training young Britih people into.

As an alternative to the latter point, for certain low-wage jobs with few promotion prospects and where higher wages are simply not economically viable, so British workers have understandably tended to avoid them, where would you stand on temporary visas, as there used to be for fruit-pickers for example? (Admittedly the case for temporary visas there was stronger as such work was also seasonal making it less likely someone in this country solely for such a job would be self-supporting.)

"High skilled family migrants should be classed as high skilled. If only for academic reasons we should at least record the data. We could also assess how many go into high skilled work" - collecting and verifying the full Monty of data would be expensive and an unnecessary inconvenience for those involved; for academic purposes, social surveys are probably enough. And "high skilled" is still tricky to pin down. I could find jobs in the £50k-100k range requiring nothing more than experience in recruitment or sales or jobs for £30k or below requiring MSc in a technical subject, so wage data isn't enough, but nor is academic level - think of top chefs, footballers, actors, artists etc.

Any new immigration rules are unlikely to be simply points-based (that has been rejected as too simplistic/easily gameable) so will likely involve a confusing morass of requirements involving different qualification/experience (maybe salary too?) requirements for different jobs, legal wrangling over whether a certain job description fits into a certain category, what the appropriate numbers allowed should be for each type ... governments are generally poor at planning economies in detail, and there's no reason to expect them to have better luck at planning the labour market. It's certainly unlikely to be as responsive to employer demands as simply letting high-skilled labour move freely over Europe - precisely because they are not being distinguished, in whatever complex ways, from low-skilled labour who are also allowed to move freely...

Nevertheless I can't see the public appetite for unskilled migration to be limited is inherently illegitimate. People seem to me to be at liberty to invite whom they like into their home. But restrictions do come with a cost.

Ishmael_Z said:

And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.

That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.

HHemmelig said:

And that is certainly how the average American tends to view things, hence the draconian visa process for professionals whilst they turn a blind eye to millions upon millions of illegal Mexican gardeners and hotel maids.

If I were Big Boss Of The USA for a decade or two, and I was concerned about America's relative standing in the world as potential strategic rivals increase rapidly both in population and GDP per capita, and therefore doubly so in economic strength, I would be very keen to set up a system that brings in a hundred million (or a couple thereof) more New Americans by 2060, say. But I think I'd still want to be - and could afford to be - a bit choosey about who those millions might be, and in such respects their system, or the failure of its enforcement at massive scales, is bonkers.

Anyhow, here's a counterpoint I often think about.

Failing to stay in the EU has social and economic costs. Therefore Brexit is wrong-headed, stupid, immoral and illegitimate.

Restricting migration has social and economic costs. Therefore such migration policy is wrong-headed, stupid, immoral and illegitimate.

Failing to join the USA has social and economic costs. Therefore eschewing 51st-statehood is wrong-headed, stupid, immoral and illegitimate.

Just in terms of economic convergence, one would expect a substantially higher GDP/capita from joining the USA as an integral state than from rejoining the EU. We have learned from watching people debating Brexit that even people we never previously suspected of thinking such things now fervently believe that economic growth and increased commercial trade are absolutely vital, the lifeblood of public services and so on, so anything that might shed a few percent of those things is therefore basically a conspiracy to kill frail people by reducing health and social care funding. Well there's a great hulking big pot of gold lying over the Atlantic, far stronger than the EU, and by this logic joining up with it will save thousands of lives so must be a Good Thing, and any opposition to it is basically evil. It would grant free movement to hundreds of millions of people. Plus we won't need to learn any foreign languages (well, kinda) and our votes would mean no more Trumpalikes, and more sensible policies on guns'n'wombs'n'healthcare. What is there not to like?

MyBurningEars said:

Elliot said:

I agree with your first point. High skilled family migrants should be classed as high skilled. If only for academic reasons we should at least record the data. We could also assess how many go into high skilled work.

Non-medical care work and domestic service seem like things highly suitable for training young Britih people into.

Any new immigration rules are unlikely to be simply points-based (that has been rejected as too simplistic/easily gameable) so will likely involve a confusing morass of requirements involving different qualification/experience (maybe salary too?) requirements for different jobs, legal wrangling over whether a certain job description fits into a certain category, what the appropriate numbers allowed should be for each type ... governments are generally poor at planning economies in detail, and there's no reason to expect them to have better luck at planning the labour market. It's certainly unlikely to be as responsive to employer demands as simply letting high-skilled labour move freely over Europe - precisely because they are not being distinguished, in whatever complex ways, from low-skilled labour who are also allowed to move freely...

Nevertheless I can't see the public appetite for unskilled migration to be limited is inherently illegitimate. People seem to me to be at liberty to invite whom they like into their home. But restrictions do come with a cost.

I think the coming wave of automation is likely to mean a shortage of lower wage, unskilled work so there is little need to bring in migrants to fill them. Germany's experience with temporary workers has found they tend not to be temporary, yet the status discourages the mental leap needed for integration, so I am not sure that is the right model.

For me a points system can work well if well-designed. It is less prone to special interest lobbying than a sector-specific approach, which would also be more vulnerabke to your central planning criticisms. The best way to do it would be an either-or approach to salary earnings or academic achievement. More emphasis on the age component would also be sensible from a dependency ratio perspective.

Dear Deirdre, my hire car has the initials JZR and has been christened Jezzer by its occupants. I am concerned that it might veer sharply to the left without warning - and might be a danger to Jewish road users. What should I do?

Elliot said:

I think the coming wave of automation is likely to mean a shortage of lower wage, unskilled work so there is little need to bring in migrants to fill them. Germany's experience with temporary workers has found they tend not to be temporary, yet the status discourages the mental leap needed for integration, so I am not sure that is the right model.

For me a points system can work well if well-designed. It is less prone to special interest lobbying than a sector-specific approach, which would also be more vulnerabke to your central planning criticisms. The best way to do it would be an either-or approach to salary earnings or academic achievement. More emphasis on the age component would also be sensible from a dependency ratio perspective.

I have to trot. Quite a lot of analysis in there I agree with, as well as some I don't. But many thanks for the considered reply.

williamglenn said:

Three top barristers conclude: 'Vote Leave committed crime on Brexit campaign'

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/three-top-barristers-conclude-crime-committed-over-brexit-vote-a3799261.html

Just going nowhere

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Three top barristers conclude: 'Vote Leave committed crime on Brexit campaign'

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/three-top-barristers-conclude-crime-committed-over-brexit-vote-a3799261.html

Just going nowhere

Apart from out of the EU.....

Russian embassy running a twitter poll on which US consulate to close.
https://twitter.com/RusEmbUSA/status/978273613349556224

Quick reality check:

https://twitter.com/GideonSkinner/status/978281008805089280?s=20

The Left's blindspot in a nutshell:

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/978215333386481664

AlastairMeeks said:

Torby_Fennel said:

Ishmael_Z said:

And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.

That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.

Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.

https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/house-price-to-earnings-ratio.png
https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/rail-80-10.png
https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cost-transport.png

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Three top barristers conclude: 'Vote Leave committed crime on Brexit campaign'

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/three-top-barristers-conclude-crime-committed-over-brexit-vote-a3799261.html

Just going nowhere

Exactly what ever they do will not change the result.Time to move on.

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Torby_Fennel said:

Ishmael_Z said:

And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.

That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.

Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.

But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....

There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.

Neolithic MarqueeMark would no doubt have been growling about the Beaker People coming here and taking their women. The 21st century version is no more on the money than his ancestor.

rottenborough said:

It would be ironic, would it not, if Jezza is brought down by his indiscriminate use of social media?

If he could bring down Facebook with him... Result!

williamglenn said:

Russian embassy running a twitter poll on which US consulate to close.
https://twitter.com/RusEmbUSA/status/978273613349556224

https://twitter.com/breakandentertv/status/978275907742945281?s=21

AlastairMeeks said:

There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.

Hmm, I don't think that one flies. Whilst you are right on the question of density, the fact at the moment is that new building takes place at the cost of enormous detriment to the countryside. It makes no sense to accept huge increases in population before we have sorted that out, especially since the political will and political space to do so doesn't really exist.

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Torby_Fennel said:

Ishmael_Z said:

And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.

That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.

Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.

But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....

There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.

Neolithic MarqueeMark would no doubt have been growling about the Beaker People coming here and taking their women. The 21st century version is no more on the money than his ancestor.

We used the third dimension. Grenfelll was the result.

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Torby_Fennel said:

Ishmael_Z said:

And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.

That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.

Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.

But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....

There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.

...

That's right. Because everyone loves living in tower blocks.

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.

Hmm, I don't think that one flies. Whilst you are right on the question of density, the fact at the moment is that new building takes place at the cost of enormous detriment to the countryside. It makes no sense to accept huge increases in population before we have sorted that out, especially since the political will and political space to do so doesn't really exist.

Some things I've noted in the last few months

1) The threat of development near one's property really sticks in the craw.
2) The process of development (Bulldozers etc) is hideous if you're near it.
3) Once development has taken place and you have a few new builds near you - thats not as good as before, but definitely better than stages 1 and 2.

Oh Lord give us housing, just not near me...

https://twitter.com/girlonetrack/status/978250726467088384

AlastairMeeks said:

MarkHopkins said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Torby_Fennel said:

Ishmael_Z said:

And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.

That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.

Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.

But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....

There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.

...

That's right. Because everyone loves living in tower blocks.

In central London you can find enough luxury blocks of flats. But you don't need to go beyond 5 or 6 storey mansion blocks. Kensington & Chelsea is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country. It is also the most expensive for property.

150 years ago everyone dreamed of 3 acres and a cow. Tastes change with time and education.

I still dream of 3 acres and a cow