General Election 2019 thread (3 Viewers)

Forums New posts
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
OffenhamSkyBlue said:
I wish something more had come from the "indicative votes" a way back. I think that was the closest the House ever got to a sensible consensus, but there was never really any time given for meaningful debate on any of the alternative options.
I certainly take the point about not being allowed to promote ideas - even when May said she was going to have cross-party collaboration, it never really happened in any meaningful way, AFAIK.
It's all just a complete crock!
Click to expand...

I could never understand why they didn’t just put a few options down and have MPs rank them in order of preference, then just pick the one that wins.

Having a series of yes/no votes was always going to end up with no to everything because everyone is still holding onto their first choice because nothing is really off the table.
 
O

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Ireland has proven to be such a difficult obstacle to overcome, hasn't it? While i don't pretend to understand all the technicalities of the Good Friday agreement, and i can't BEGIN to understand the hatred across the sectarian divide, I DO find it hard to comprehend why a soft border like they have between Switzerland (non-EU) and France couldn't work. Yes, there may be a customs post at major crossings, but that wouldn't be manned by armed military, and the HUGE majority of traffic passes without even slowing down (other than to use the Bureau de Change or to buy a new Swiss motorway vignette). I sense we've been held to ransom somewhat by a very small minority of the UK, for no robust reason.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
I can. That is why I say for the first time ever I might not vote.
Click to expand...

My point is even if you don’t vote, someone will win the election.

We really need people to get involved in politics at a local level but even someone like me who is really into politics doesn’t have the time or inclination to spend years going along to pointless meetings in the hope of greasing enough palms to be selected.

Not sure what the answer is. Maybe a day a month off for people to do civic duty, if not politics then charity work and the like. I dunno, but we can’t keep on down this route where the parties get more mental because normal people don’t want to get involved.
 
NorthernWisdom

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
We really need people to get involved in politics at a local level but even someone like me who is really into politics doesn’t have the time or inclination to spend years going along to pointless meetings in the hope of greasing enough palms to be selected.
Click to expand...
It's also hard in certain areas if you're Labour inclined. It's woman only shortlists around where I live, which means my involvement would be limited by definition.
 
O

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Is not voting just playing into their hands? If more people had voted in what is now viewed as the most important ballot in peacetime history (the referendum) - which did have the highest turnout in living memory, didn't it - it might have been accepted as being the true will of the people.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
NorthernWisdom said:
It's also hard in certain areas if you're Labour inclined. It's woman only shortlists around where I live, which means my involvement would be limited by definition.
Click to expand...

Could be wrong but I thought AWS was decided at each election rather than as a blanket policy at a CLP. Either way I’m not a fan of the policy for that exact reason.
 
O

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
My point is even if you don’t vote, someone will win the election.

We really need people to get involved in politics at a local level but even someone like me who is really into politics doesn’t have the time or inclination to spend years going along to pointless meetings in the hope of greasing enough palms to be selected.

Not sure what the answer is. Maybe a day a month off for people to do civic duty, if not politics then charity work and the like. I dunno, but we can’t keep on down this route where the parties get more mental because normal people don’t want to get involved.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I sit on the parish council in my village, and while our district council is not a particularly rotten borough (predominantly Tory), i don't think that party politics has a place at that level - decisions need to be made for the good of the people of the district.
 
Philosorapter

Philosorapter

Well-Known Member
If anyone's got a spare two hours.. one of my favourite political documentaries.

Mistakes will keep on being made until we start learning the lessons from the past.

 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
Didn’t know that about Kansas SBD ! Interesting example

The wider point I was making across various posts was that the economy is far from straight forward and there are a variety of factors. Whilst Kansas may not have seen any direct benefits from be removal of business tax’s, if a company needed staff but wasnt making sufficient profits to justify one, a reduction in business tax may help with this

ps also, nobody can tell me that a reduction in business rates wouldn’t help many businesses on the high st, thereby at least securing (even if not increasing) employment.
Click to expand...

I get your point and yes there are circumstances whereby tax cuts can help a business that may be looking to expand (not due to profit but it improves cashflow as they don't have to have as much liquidity in reserve for the tax bill). But that expansion will be determined predominantly by market conditions. If those conditions aren't there the expansion won't happen or will be unsuccessful.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
No its just more misleading hogwash decide to create a story and fool the gullible like yourself

The key word that is exploited here is the word average. So that means actually more people could have improved wages far above the average than not. Consider the following

- In an ageing economy where people at the top of the wage sphere are retiring and more lower paid people start work then this distorts the figure significantly
- Countries with higher unemployment rates can actually do better by this measurement - countries like the UK which have higher employment levels actually will do worse on this measure

So for example consider this:

It is a fact that in 2014 average earnings grew by only 0.1% BUT those in work for more than a year grew by 4.1% so the data tells us nothing without the detail

Another fact -- wages are now on the increase and since the Lib Dem involvement in the coalition have consistently increased above inflation. So is this recommending Tory alone strategy?

This year has seen a significant upturn has it not? An 11 year high on this measure

Oh this graph is by Geoff Tily - a Labour activist and yet again economist for the TUC

Well I never

The sharpest percentage average drop happened under Labour in this period of evaluation
Click to expand...

The whole point of the average is to even out those who have high percentage rises and those who have none at all. Those in economics use it as it tends to paint a better overall picture than reality because often the high raises occur for those in better paid jobs whereas the lower paid get very poor rises. The increasing wealth gap highlights this.

I agree these things in isolation can lead to skewed results and I would prefer other averages like median and mode to be included. More than this however I want to see it split into wage brackets to really highlight the difference between the higher and lower paid jobs.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
The whole point of the average is to even out those who have high percentage rises and those who have none at all. Those in economics use it as it tends to paint a better overall picture than reality because often the high raises occur for those in better paid jobs whereas the lower paid get very poor rises. The increasing wealth gap highlights this.

I agree these things in isolation can lead to skewed results and I would prefer other averages like median and mode to be included. More than this however I want to see it split into wage brackets to really highlight the difference between the higher and lower paid jobs.
Click to expand...

the other distortion is the large amount who are in the public sector where there was a wage cap

oh and before people scream big bad Tories I suggest they have a look at the last time a labour government formed a pro union power alliance and the catastrophic impact it had
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
The whole point of the average is to even out those who have high percentage rises and those who have none at all. Those in economics use it as it tends to paint a better overall picture than reality because often the high raises occur for those in better paid jobs whereas the lower paid get very poor rises. The increasing wealth gap highlights this.

I agree these things in isolation can lead to skewed results and I would prefer other averages like median and mode to be included. More than this however I want to see it split into wage brackets to really highlight the difference between the higher and lower paid jobs.
Click to expand...

If you’ve got better data, crack on. But the response to an incomplete dataset isn’t to substitute your own biases.

I believe medians are most often used for this stuff anyway. Believe it or not the ONS and OECD have decent statisticians ;)
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
the other distortion is the large amount who are in the public sector where there was a wage cap

oh and before people scream big bad Tories I suggest they have a look at the last time a labour government formed a pro union power alliance and the catastrophic impact it had
Click to expand...

At the time I was working in public sector and got just below inflation pay rises. My mum worked in the banking sector (cashier) and got no pay rises for four straight years. Fifth year she got 1%. The CEO got way above inflation and didn't include share options etc and bonuses.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
If you’ve got better data, crack on. But the response to an incomplete dataset isn’t to substitute your own biases.

I believe medians are most often used for this stuff anyway. Believe it or not the ONS and OECD have decent statisticians ;)
Click to expand...

Are you saying that splitting info into wage bands wouldn't be instructive?

Although I'm sure the original data does specify the type of average usually by the time they get to the public it is just 'average' with no explanation as to which average it is. Hence why I think showing different types of average on one graph would also be useful. I'd even include SD.
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
NorthernWisdom said:
Might explain why he's no fan of Rosie Duffield then...

I did hear that the person who commissioned said article is Dominic Cummings's wife. That can't be right, surely?
Click to expand...

She's something to do with the Spectator, perhaps deputy editor because the editor is the fella with the posh name, is it Ralph something?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
If you’ve got better data, crack on. But the response to an incomplete dataset isn’t to substitute your own biases.

I believe medians are most often used for this stuff anyway. Believe it or not the ONS and OECD have decent statisticians ;)
Click to expand...

Oddly enough you just seem to quote TUC sponsored economists and ignore the National Office of Statistics
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Are you saying that splitting info into wage bands wouldn't be instructive?

Although I'm sure the original data does specify the type of average usually by the time they get to the public it is just 'average' with no explanation as to which average it is. Hence why I think showing different types of average on one graph would also be useful. I'd even include SD.
Click to expand...

Would wage band be useful? It’s be somewhat arbitrary. You’d have to track individual data for it to be useful otherwise when someone gets a pay rise and moves bands they get lost.

There’s issues with all methodologies, as long as it’s wrong across samples and locations the comparison is pretty sound.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Would wage band be useful? It’s be somewhat arbitrary. You’d have to track individual data for it to be useful otherwise when someone gets a pay rise and moves bands they get lost.

There’s issues with all methodologies, as long as it’s wrong across samples and locations the comparison is pretty sound.
Click to expand...
The.office.of.national.statstics.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Would wage band be useful? It’s be somewhat arbitrary. You’d have to track individual data for it to be useful otherwise when someone gets a pay rise and moves bands they get lost.

There’s issues with all methodologies, as long as it’s wrong across samples and locations the comparison is pretty sound.
Click to expand...

I believe so. If you get told that average wage inflation is say 2% and you're getting 1.5% you'd feel a bit hard done by. But if you could see that the average in your wage band was 1% you'd actually done better than average. Or vice versa.

Not to mention the disparity between higher and lower groups, which could either prove or disprove that those on higher wages get higher pay rises. It may also stop some of those extortionate pay rises at the top due to the likely backlash when the statistics became available, as well as stop the use of the average when it gets trotted out that wage inflation was above price inflation when for the poorest it may well be below it.

You are indeed correct about the individual data and for me the bands would be based upon the original salary at the start of the year/period.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I believe so. If you get told that average wage inflation is say 2% and you're getting 1.5% you'd feel a bit hard done by. But if you could see that the average in your wage band was 1% you'd actually done better than average. Or vice versa.

Not to mention the disparity between higher and lower groups, which could either prove or disprove that those on higher wages get higher pay rises. It may also stop some of those extortionate pay rises at the top due to the likely backlash when the statistics became available, as well as stop the use of the average when it gets trotted out that wage inflation was above price inflation when for the poorest it may well be below it.

You are indeed correct about the individual data and for me the bands would be based upon the original salary at the start of the year/period.
Click to expand...

in the subject I discussed average growth 0.1% anyone who worked in a job for a year was 4.1% - what does that tell you about the methodology?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top