Politics, politics, politics

[Parklaner81]

I take you’re point about British born working people being undercut by cheap labourers etc who are willing to work hard and get less pay. Anyone who drives a bus and hasn’t had a pay rise for x years has a very valid grievance with the EU. But you have to look at our own governments too. Our government CHOSE not to veto free movement for the new EU countries. Meaning Romanians etc came here when they weren’t allowed into Germany. The UK also chose not to register migrants or send any back that were out of work or ask all migrants to register. But yes, it is unfair on working people when they are undercut by cheap eu labor.

The biggest single reason we are where we are today, in my opinion. Blair & co. have an awful lot to answer for.

 

[milo]

CETA would be much better. Access to 91% of the single market, no FoM or other interference with our governance. The only people that tinkles off is the bankers.

CETA is a goods based agreement, we are a service based economy. The customs checks under CETA would add significant costs to just in time manufacturing chains and make a lot of our agricultural exports unviable.

 

[milo]

The problem is the power balance

I wouldn't have so much issue with the EU if it was run by the Council. A co-operation between 28 national governments. The problem is the Commission runs the show, and they are unaccountable ideologically-driven priests. The Parliament is too big to be effective and has no power in the system anyway.

Abolish the Commissions and the trappings of statehood (FoM, schengen, eurozone) and I could be persuaded by the concept of an EU

That's just not true. The President of the Commission is the least powerful of the Presidents. Nothing can pass into law without the support of the European Council or Council of Ministers, this is where the power sits.

Schengen and the Euro one are red herrings because we are not members. Freedom of movement is required because otherwise you have a barrier to free trade. Deny someone physical access to your market and it is very hard to trade there. This is why the four freedoms are not divisible.

 

[milo]

The Leave campaign had 40 years of momentum, including boiling resentment about the lies of the first referendum and the Maastricht sell-out. No one has ever loved the EU, just tolerated it, so no one could muster emotion for that cause (save maybe Clegg).

It's a shame in that time no one had the foresight to think of a workable plan for after winning the vote.

 

[milo]

The biggest single reason we are where we are today, in my opinion. Blair & co. have an awful lot to answer for.

I think that the issue was more to do with government spending and successive governments blaming their own failures on the EU and claiming EU successes as domestic. This was amplified by a hostile media looking after their owners interests.

 

[Parklaner81]

I think that the issue was more to do with government spending and successive governments blaming their own failures on the EU and claiming EU successes as domestic. This was amplified by a hostile media looking after their owners interests.

If I'm interpreting correctly, that sounds like your general take on the leave vote in overview. My point was more about a single isolated contributing factor.

In my opinion immigration was the biggest driver of the leave vote. Of this, the government failures around 2004, in terms of failing to impose any of the controls available to them was probably the single biggest failure.

I don't think we would be where we are today if that single episode had been handled more cautiously.

 

[SpurMeUp]

The irony is with 75% of younger voters favouring Remain, the UK is set to be extremely pro European [emoji23]


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Baleforce]

If I'm interpreting correctly, that sounds like your general take on the leave vote in overview. My point was more about a single isolated contributing factor.

In my opinion immigration was the biggest driver of the leave vote. Of this, the government failures around 2004, in terms of failing to impose any of the controls available to them was probably the single biggest failure.

I don't think we would be where we are today if that single episode had been handled more cautiously.

the failure has been not getting the message across, FoM and immigration are good for our economy

like @milo says, the EU has been a convenient place to park the blame for our own failings

 

[Parklaner81]

the failure has been not getting the message across, FoM and immigration are good for our economy

So to take 2004 as an example then, is it your opinion that in fact our government did the right thing, and that it was (virtually) everyone else in the EU that got it wrong by imposing restrictions that they did?

 

[Baleforce]

So to take 2004 as an example then, is it your opinion that in fact our government did the right thing, and that it was (virtually) everyone else in the EU that got it wrong by imposing restrictions that they did?

it depends on the specifics of each nations situation

for the UK, with our skills shortage and pension gap, then and now, we need these people

 

[Parklaner81]

it depends on the specifics of each nations situation

for the UK, with our skills shortage and pension gap, then and now, we need these people

I think the Labour government forecasts of the time make this highly questionable. We were, afterall, only expecting c.10k people per annum as a result of our failure to apply transitional controls. Where were we expecting the 100's of thousands of others that were needed to come from, on top of existing levels?

In any case, my point was not made to debate the economic impact of migration. It was about a perception of a lack of prudent control, sustainability and social cohesion. That, in my opinion, is what drove the leave vote above anything else.

 

[scaramanga]

CETA is a goods based agreement, we are a service based economy. The customs checks under CETA would add significant costs to just in time manufacturing chains and make a lot of our agricultural exports unviable.

My business works right in the middle of a JIT supply chain.

There's very little difference between the goods we buy from the EU and the ones we buy from Dubai or the US, except that the goods from outside the EU are significantly cheaper. Same goes for goods we ship out of the EU.

There are some fairly standard arrangements that keep this all moving smoothly - everyone knows them and everyone sticks to them. The sender prepays the duty, pays it to the shipping company and gives them the required forms. When the goods go through customs the shipping company has the paperwork and the proof of payment.

The fact that goods are so much cheaper outside the EU more than makes up for the duty on import and the paperwork is no more detailed or onorous than if we're moving items around the EU.

 

[milo]

CETA is a goods based agreement, we are a service based economy. The customs checks under CETA would add significant costs to just in time manufacturing chains and make a lot of our agricultural exports unviable.

This report puts the cost to the UK of loss of access to the single market for services at between £25b and £36b per year.

https://cebr.com/reports/the-economic-impact-on-services-from-the-uk-losing-single-market-access/

For comparison, our annual spend on secondary education is £27b.

The question that needs to be answered before we can seriously consider a CETA type deal is where would we replace this and how long would it take to happen?

 

[Gutter Boy]

the failure has been not getting the message across, FoM and immigration are good for our economy

Cutting down every tree in the country and selling it as timber is good for the economy. But it screws you long term and creates all sorts of other non-economic problems

Growing your population to fund the excesses of yesteryear is simply ponzi scheme.

 

[milo]

This is very good on the current state of play in Ireland

https://twitter.com/x/status/936881404339675136

 

[milo]

Cutting down every tree in the country and selling it as timber is good for the economy. But it screws you long term and creates all sorts of other non-economic problems

Growing your population to fund the excesses of yesteryear is simply ponzi scheme.

That is not an analogy that stands up to scrutiny. Most EU immigrants come here for a short period of time, work, pay taxes, take little back and then go home. They help grow the economy whilst they are here and create wealth. Without them, our economy would be smaller and our future weaker. What you are proposing is far closer to clearing the forest to satisfy short term demands.

 

[the dza]

Just a quick glance away from Brexit...

The most accurate pollster for the last 2 General Elections was Survation. Their latest polling:

https://twitter.com/x/status/937088238627500032

http://survation.com/labour-extends-polling-lead-8-points-conservatives/

New Polling

We have a new political poll, conducted online Wednesday to Thursday on behalf of Mail on Sunday indicating that Labour’s support is back to its post election high of 45%. With the Conservative party share drifting lower in the poll at 37% the net effect of these factors is a polling lead for Labour of 8 points.

State of the parties – December 3rd (changes vs Survation polling 4th-5th October)
LAB 45% (+1) CON 37% (-1) LD 6% (-1) UKIP 4% (NC) SNP 3% (NC) GRE 1% (NC) AP 3% (NC)

We’ve not seen such a lead for Labour in a Survation poll since late 2013. An 8 point lead would put the Labour party into overall majority territory if such vote share totals were reflected at the ballot box.

Are Survation the outliers again? unchanged methodology gives us confidence

Much of the polling being conducted currently in the industry at large has some form of amended methodology since before the General Election. The industry’s problems with probabilistic turnout assumptions (deciding turnout based on historical voting patterns) served to incorrectly suppress change in opinion – for Labour support in particular – which contributed to the overall overestimation of the Conservative lead.

As Survation’s final online and telephone polling for GE 2017 had the “correct answer” – a small Conservative lead over Labour and a hung parliament picture we have not needed to change our methodology for either mode as both produced accurate vote share estimates, with the final poll being the most accurate in the industry.

Our final pre-election online poll (June 3rd) produced a Labour figure of 39% while our final polling of the general election was by telephone and had a GB (ex NI) figure for Labour of 40.4 – both methods slightly underestimated Labour’s actual election performance of 41%. We also underestimated the Conservatives who took 43.5% of the actual vote vs our final poll of 41.3%.

Still not experimenting

Having an unchanged methodology does simplify things greatly if an avid poll watcher wanted to contextualise this current polling with that conducted ahead of the General Election – which is shown in detail below.

It also gives us confidence that Labour is indeed enjoying a decent lead over the Conservatives at the current time. There’s no experimental methodology at work here, the methodology is that which proved accurate at the election.

 

[milo]

That is not an analogy that stands up to scrutiny. Most EU immigrants come here for a short period of time, work, pay taxes, take little back and then go home. They help grow the economy whilst they are here and create wealth. Without them, our economy would be smaller and our future weaker. What you are proposing is far closer to clearing the forest to satisfy short term demands.

This piece from Today earlier this week is worth listening to on this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05pkkkl

 

[milo]

Just a quick glance away from Brexit...

The most accurate pollster for the last 2 General Elections was Survation. Their latest polling:

https://twitter.com/x/status/937088238627500032

http://survation.com/labour-extends-polling-lead-8-points-conservatives/

New Polling

We have a new political poll, conducted online Wednesday to Thursday on behalf of Mail on Sunday indicating that Labour’s support is back to its post election high of 45%. With the Conservative party share drifting lower in the poll at 37% the net effect of these factors is a polling lead for Labour of 8 points.

State of the parties – December 3rd (changes vs Survation polling 4th-5th October)
LAB 45% (+1) CON 37% (-1) LD 6% (-1) UKIP 4% (NC) SNP 3% (NC) GRE 1% (NC) AP 3% (NC)

We’ve not seen such a lead for Labour in a Survation poll since late 2013. An 8 point lead would put the Labour party into overall majority territory if such vote share totals were reflected at the ballot box.

Are Survation the outliers again? unchanged methodology gives us confidence

Much of the polling being conducted currently in the industry at large has some form of amended methodology since before the General Election. The industry’s problems with probabilistic turnout assumptions (deciding turnout based on historical voting patterns) served to incorrectly suppress change in opinion – for Labour support in particular – which contributed to the overall overestimation of the Conservative lead.

As Survation’s final online and telephone polling for GE 2017 had the “correct answer” – a small Conservative lead over Labour and a hung parliament picture we have not needed to change our methodology for either mode as both produced accurate vote share estimates, with the final poll being the most accurate in the industry.

Our final pre-election online poll (June 3rd) produced a Labour figure of 39% while our final polling of the general election was by telephone and had a GB (ex NI) figure for Labour of 40.4 – both methods slightly underestimated Labour’s actual election performance of 41%. We also underestimated the Conservatives who took 43.5% of the actual vote vs our final poll of 41.3%.

Still not experimenting

Having an unchanged methodology does simplify things greatly if an avid poll watcher wanted to contextualise this current polling with that conducted ahead of the General Election – which is shown in detail below.

It also gives us confidence that Labour is indeed enjoying a decent lead over the Conservatives at the current time. There’s no experimental methodology at work here, the methodology is that which proved accurate at the election.

Wow. The chart since May makes interesting reading

I think that there are far tougher times ahead for the government on Brexit too.

 

[the dza]

Wow. The chart since May makes interesting reading

I think that there are far tougher times ahead for the government on Brexit too.

I think the Tories are banking on a "brushed aluminium cyber-prick" to replace May and everything being fine again. IMO, it isn't going to work that way. And the longer May remains in charge, the more damage will be done to their brand. And that's before considering the impact of Brexit.