the snap general election thread

michaels

antrobus wrote: »

Mr Wells explains one of the reasons why polls can produce (slightly) different results;

ICM and ComRes have adopted new approaches. Rather than basing their turnout model on people’s self-reported likelihood to vote, they base it on their demographics – estimating respondent’s likelihood to vote based on their age and social grade – the assumption being that younger people and working class people will remain less likely than older, more middle class people to vote. This tends to have the effect of making the results substantially more Conservative, less Labour, meaning that ICM and ComRes tend to produce some of the biggest Tory leads.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9882

I think 'likelihood to vote' is often the reason polls and result sdiffer. Problem is I am not sure that it is as simple as adjusting by demographic.

Last election I think Labour voters were not enthused by their party whereas Tory (and libdem) voters were scared enough of Labour/SNP to turn out to mak esure Labour didn't get in.

Similarly the EU referendum Yes voters were told to vote Stay because Leave would be terrible rather than for any positive reason and having been told that Yes would win they stayed away whereas Leave voters saw it as I once ever chance not to become part of the United states of Europe and turned out on mass.

Going further back, Tony Balir did enthuse his left/centre base and all those young people and cynical of politics people did turn out and vote for him.

Ie three different elections and three different demographics were enthused to turn out. This election there are all sorts of possibilities: Tories and Kippers turn out in droves to secure Brexit; Tories don't bother to turn out as they think they will win easily; Labour voters stay at home because Corbyn doesn't reflect social democrat values and or Labour stand no chance; The young and precariat tunn out in record numbers for a left wing socialist labour; The libdems/greens/whoever are boosted by the anyone but tories/remainer crowd turing out and voting tactically in maginal seats.

SO yes adjusting for likelihood to vote will give a better answer...but only if you make the right adjustment!

ThinkingOutLoud_2

sevenhills wrote: »

“strong and stable”

With a stable currency?

Most start ups are not trading internationally - so most are not directly impacted by currency fluctuations. Of course, if they use imported raw materials ...

But a clear an consistent tax / corporation tax and NI situation does help them model their finances. Large and sudden negative changes hurt sharply when you are small.

michaels

Here we go again, the BBC are telling us that smart people are less likely to vote conservative:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927

What the smart people at the bbc are not clever enough to realise is that this is just people voting their self interest. If you are a young graduate you may well be able to think about woking abroad, less likely to be out competed for a job by an immigrant and likely to benefit from cheap unskilled labour holding down the prices of nannies and coffees. If you are lower skilled you are very unlikely to want to try and get a job abroad but very likely to have seen your pay stagnate due to the unlimited supply of competing labour from the EU.

CKhalvashi

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Most start ups are not trading internationally - so most are not directly impacted by currency fluctuations. Of course, if they use imported raw materials ...

But a clear an consistent tax / corporation tax and NI situation does help them model their finances. Large and sudden negative changes hurt sharply when you are small.

Mine was, always has been, and it's a much better catalyst for growth in select markets.

It's not for everyone, but a pro-growth policy can help those that can be easily transitioned to trade internationally. Another fact is that the vital support networks for such businesses are often EU-funded, which is why (along with the ease of the single market access) many businesses that have been set up in such a way look to the EU first.

Wednesday2000

michaels wrote: »

Here we go again, the BBC are telling us that smart people are less likely to vote conservative:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927

What the smart people at the bbc are not clever enough to realise is that this is just people voting their self interest. If you are a young graduate you may well be able to think about woking abroad, less likely to be out competed for a job by an immigrant and likely to benefit from cheap unskilled labour holding down the prices of nannies and coffees. If you are lower skilled you are very unlikely to want to try and get a job abroad but very likely to have seen your pay stagnate due to the unlimited supply of competing labour from the EU.

Exactly. So patronising.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Mine was, always has been.

Yep. I said most. Good on you.
So per a BBC reality check just for the EU - 200-300k business trade with the EU out of total of 5.4M in 2016.

sevenhills

michaels wrote: »

Here we go again, the BBC are telling us that smart people are less likely to vote conservative:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927

Since rich people are more likely to vote Conservative; maybe what they are saying is that university is not the route to becoming filthy rich

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Another fact is that the vital support networks for such businesses are often EU-funded

Not EU funded. They are tax payer funded. The issue is that such schemes waste huge sums in administration etc. With a result that money is often not well spent. Which is the downfall of many a Government plan.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not EU funded. They are tax payer funded. The issue is that such schemes waste huge sums in administration etc. With a result that money is often not well spent. Which is the downfall of many a Government plan.

On the basis our net contribution to the EU is more than we get back - that would be right.

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not EU funded. They are tax payer funded. The issue is that such schemes waste huge sums in administration etc. With a result that money is often not well spent. Which is the downfall of many a Government plan.

They are funded as part of a network by the EU, with membership fees from member governments.

How much is spent in administration on that specific scheme I don't know, however I consider from personal experience that most offer good value for money in terms of tax returns for money spent.

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

On the basis our net contribution to the EU is more than we get back - that would be right.

We pay a fee for access to a single market, which pays for the cost of regulating that via elected politicians, led by those elected by elected governments, nothing more, nothing less.

In return, some businesses get some of that money back, with farmers being the largest one. Some of that money also goes into assisting regions (including some in the UK) with their own development.

That cost is about 1% of our GDP for access to more than 7x our own population, of largely wealthy consumers, with additional trade deals reaching further than any individual country in the world could hope for. A tiny price to pay for what we get in return.