Politics, politics, politics

[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.

50% to 34% in favour of a second referendum too. I could be wrong but I think that is a big swing.

 

[Seedy Ron]

Wow. The chart since May makes interesting reading

What happened in July?

 

[milo]

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.

There is a serious talent shortage in the parliamentary Tory party. May is brick but their biggest problem is that they are unleadable. There are a handful of ideologues, who cannot see sense, and are holding everyone else to ransom. Europe has killed off the last three Tory PMs and it is about to claim its forth. The Conservative Party are destined to repeat this until they can reconcile their beliefs with reality.

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/937107559508594691

 

[Parklaner81]

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.

Can I ask what you're basing this assertion on, as the cumulative net migration figure since 2004 from the EU is running at around 1.4m?
Gross arrivals over the same period were only circa 2.5m (2004-2016, according to migrationwatch).

 

[Parklaner81]

In other news, this new development could be set to change the terms of the debate entirely...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/foodanddr...inks-with-heart-disease/ar-BBG2q1z?li=BBoPWjQ

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

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.

But surely that was a fault of our govts - not enforcing the 3 month rule, not the EU.

And did Leavers think that all these non-EU countries that we're going to do deals with won't want immigration as part of these agreements?

It's entirely possible that we'll swap Europeans for Australians or people from India or Canada or Africa for example.

 

[Gutter Boy]

But surely that was a fault of our govts - not enforcing the 3 month rule, not the EU.

And did Leavers think that all these non-EU countries that we're going to do deals with won't want immigration as part of these agreements?

It's entirely possible that we'll swap Europeans for Australians or people from India or Canada or Africa for example.

What other FTAs include immigration?

Not NAFTA, not TPP, not CETA

 

[DTA]

What other FTAs include immigration?

Not NAFTA, not TPP, not CETA

Your missing the point entirely. In order to keep wages low there is a need for immigration. If anyone believes that the Torys want wage inflation then they just haven't been paying attention.

As i understand it non EU immigration outstrips EU immigration. If the powers that be, really wanted to bring immigration numbers down why is that the case?

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

What other FTAs include immigration?

Not NAFTA, not TPP, not CETA

I don't know that, but the issue is certainly on the radar of (at least some of) those with whom we want to deal.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...rants-wants-free-trade-deal-warns-senior/amp/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.in...l-diplomat-warning-yk-sinha-a8073516.html?amp

I think the point is that Brexit is unlikely to be a panacea for the anti-immigration phalanx. And I doubt "more immigrants from India" was on the wish list.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Your missing the point entirely. In order to keep wages low there is a need for immigration. If anyone believes that the Torys want wage inflation then they just haven't been paying attention.

As i understand it non EU immigration outstrips EU immigration. If the powers that be, really wanted to bring immigration numbers down why is that the case?

There are points between "Blanket immigration" and "no immigration". Seems foolish to argue as if there arent.

And as I understand it, the balance between non eu and eu immigration was damn near 50/50. So while technically its correct to say non-eu was higher, the way you are doing it mis represents the reality.

 

[Parklaner81]

There are points between "Blanket immigration" and "no immigration". Seems foolish to argue as if there arent.

And as I understand it, the balance between non eu and eu immigration was damn near 50/50. So while technically its correct to say non-eu was higher, the way you are doing it mis represents the reality.

Was just going to make the very same point. The point about non-EU immigration being higher gets thrown around regularly by remainers, but actually the differences are marginal.

 

[Parklaner81]

But surely that was a fault of our govts - not enforcing the 3 month rule, not the EU.

And did Leavers think that all these non-EU countries that we're going to do deals with won't want immigration as part of these agreements?

It's entirely possible that we'll swap Europeans for Australians or people from India or Canada or Africa for example.

I don't disagree at all. As I said earlier...

Blair & co. have an awful lot to answer for.

Our government, through it's utter mismanagement of (primarily) the 2004 situation, created the public concerns that drove the leave vote. That's the bigger picture in my opinion.

As regards future deals, as @nayimfromthehalfwayline has hinted, there's plenty of room for immigration in them if necessary. Just not of the open door, FoM variety. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Was just going to make the very same point. The point about non-EU immigration being higher gets thrown around regularly, but actually the differences are marginal.

But isn't the point that if there were too many migrants in total (for whatever reason: depressed wages, schools, housing etc) then if we wanted, we could have cut it by half.

But we didn't, and we didn't enforce the 3 month rule for EU migrants either.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Does the NI rumour indicate a hard customs /immigration boarder with NI to UK - otherwise it pretty much redundant isn't it? Not sure DUP will let that one fly.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Your missing the point entirely. In order to keep wages low there is a need for immigration. If anyone believes that the Torys want wage inflation then they just haven't been paying attention.

As i understand it non EU immigration outstrips EU immigration. If the powers that be, really wanted to bring immigration numbers down why is that the case?

Non-EU immigration is generally either skilled workers or spouses, because they have to get work permits. FoM from the EU however gives big business the tools to drive unskilled immigration.

I think the non-EU number is also to do with students (wrongly) being included in immigration numbers. And nearly all foreign students in the UK are Chinese and American.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Perhaps the non-EU migrants were more valuable? Again, its a scale isnt it?

I dont think anybody has said immigration in and of itself is bad. People do understand we need to have people coming into the country. The differences come in just how regulated/controlled people want that to be...

I think @scaramanga covered the supposed controls pretty well, essentially they are nobbled arent they?

Which would explain why we went to them looking for meaningful changes here. Otherwise its still a bloody ridiculous thing to go to the EU asking for something you supposedly already have, and for them to dismiss you without even pointing that out...

 

[Parklaner81]

But isn't the point that if there were too many migrants in total (for whatever reason: depressed wages, schools, housing etc) then if we wanted, we could have cut it by half.

No, not if I'm interpreting you correctly. Because that would have meant a complete and total shut down of non-EU immigration. A political non-starter.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Does the NI rumour indicate a hard customs /immigration boarder with NI to UK - otherwise it pretty much redundant isn't it? Not sure DUP will let that one fly.

I was thinking with no controls on the border between NI and ROI this would be the only way to go, wouldnt it?

That and also some sort of ID card/ability to make sure those in NI claiming benefits etc are genuine residents/actually applicable.

Otherwise, how else can it be done?

 

[Rorschach]

Does the NI rumour indicate a hard customs /immigration boarder with NI to UK - otherwise it pretty much redundant isn't it? Not sure DUP will let that one fly.

That is the logical inference. As you say the DUP will see this a step in the wrong direction. I think they are trying to use an ambiguous form of wording to allow it to step through to the next phase of negotiations without agitating the DUP too much. I doubt that will wash.