|
|
Post by graham on Jun 19, 2024 16:29:26 GMT
We have three MRP surveys tonight which convey the same overall message but differ on the scale of Tory rout.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jun 19, 2024 16:30:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Jun 19, 2024 16:36:07 GMT
Very useful article and interesting to see the confidence intervals - looks very good for the Lib Dems |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 16:37:53 GMT
Thanks very much for your response, Laszlo! As I recall it, you have made some of these points in the past before (and we have agreed on things like how Keynes is essentially monetarist, and how the stimulus doesn’t have to result in inflation), but here you are pulling them together, and flashing them out a bit. The final part, is the bit that I tend to struggle with. If I can roughly paraphrase: how a stimulus may be counter-productive, because in effect it props up zombie firms, instead of redeploying capital more efficiently? (I think your argument involves more than that, but I’m not quite following the prices thing) Not that I am saying this is necessarily wrong, but I’m still getting my head around it after many years. I certainly think there are cases where it doesn’t apply. For example, if you fail to prop up an industry on which a community depends, and the industry collapses, that community may not suddenly benefit from a redeploying of capital to leave them better off. The community may indeed suffer generations of unemployment. Yes, we did have an exchange of thoughts. Long time.... Yes, basically the stimulus can save zombies, but it can also ease competition, and hence obstruct restructuring. Oddly, when Thatcher started her rule, it was purely monetarist (hence the huge wage increase in 1979-1980 that Labour rejected- OK the promise was for buying the votes, but it fits well with monetarism). However, by 1983 the economic policy moved to a kind of supply-side economics (even if the economic school barely existed). It is not very well known, but her government paid subsidies to firms for firing textile and some other manufacturing workers (effectively the state paid for the redundancy cost). Yes, the issue of easing competition is also a criticism of tariff barriers, since while it might protect local business, it might also allow them to raise prices without improving efficiency. Yes, Thatcher allowed a wage increase, notably when it came to the miners for example. She wanted to build up coal stocks before taking them on, but notably, she didn’t take them on over pay anyway, as that would have united the miners, and anyway, we entered a period of lower inflation as oil prices fell back, so the miners weren’t as interested in striking for more pay as before. Instead she made it about pit closures, which divided the miners, since not all were affected similarly. Not immediately anyway. Must admit, I didn’t know that they paid subsidies to sack people, although now that you bring it up, I can’t say that I am entirely surprised that they might! |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 19, 2024 16:39:23 GMT
We have three MRP surveys tonight which convey the same overall message but differ on the scale of Tory rout. I have lost all faith in MRPs to do anything except predict the overall position that the Tories will lose and Labour will win - which conventional polling is also doing. They are all over the place in terms of the exact result and individual constituencies. Maybe one will prove more accurate than the others when we see the real results, but for the moment pretty worthless as a guide to anything beyond the big picture. |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jun 19, 2024 16:40:53 GMT
Just delved into the RefUk 'Contract with the people offering' in particular the section on Criminal justice where I have some experience. It declares 'Those committing second Violent or serious offences will receive mandatory life sentences' So at age 19 you get into a row at college and push someone over causing no significant Injury and are charged and convicted of common assault which by current sentencing guidelines for a first offence you may get a fine or a conditional discharge, worst case Scenario with a tough bench, a modicum of unpaid work. 10 years later you are in a Pub and some drunk is grossly offensive to your Partner and you give him a slap again causing no significant injury, again on todays guidelines a similar Sentence as before, With the RefUk contract with the people you can look forward to Life Imprisonment! Don't worry because about 5 million other Britons will be in Chokey with you! This document should be written in crayons, read it, it's laughable, Prepared by Millionaire bad faith actors, Punching down, trying to convince the hard of thinking that they are on their side. You highlight the dilemma faced by people who lean towards most of the smaller parties: do you vote for the party whose broad values align most closely with yours, despite knowing that the calibre of individual candidates may be low and the detailed policies lacking in credibility, safe in the knowledge that they probably won't win, hoping to help that party grow and improve - and to influence the only parties that can form a government under FPTP? Someone who likes the RefUK mood music, may not be that bothered that the policy on violent offences isn't credible, so long as the party is making a good case for a zero-tolerance approach: talking about the outcomes that RefUK believes a zero-tolerance approach would deliver, why those outcomes are important and why a zero-tolerance approach is the best way to deliver them.
There will also be a lot of people who will vote Green or RefUK because they like the mood music, most of them fully aware that their chosen party's manifesto isn't deliverable as it stands and that many of its candidates aren't good MP material, never mind ministerial. To put it slightly differently, some people will vote Green because they don't think the other parties are taking the climate crisis seriously enough and they believe that the Green Party is helping to move the climate crisis up the public agenda and that voting Green will add more oomph to the general effort to do that. A parallel argument about immigration probably applies to a segment of RefUK voters. I've found it very difficult to compare the policies of the parties on the crucial issue of the climate and biodiversity crises, because only Lab is expecting to implement its manifesto and be held accountable for how well they deliver their policies and how successful those policies prove to be. When it comes to the smaller parties I've resorted to judging them on whether I think the manifesto provides a coherent and clear vision, backed up with some key policy ideas, that could (a) reasonably be translated by civil servants into an implementable strategy and detailed policies that would meet with my approval or (b) be useful negotiating pressure points in any coalition negotations. I also take into account how well the party's spokespeople make the case for the type of radical approach I want to see, including whether they make a point of prioritising climate and the environment - because people generally assume votes for a minor party reflect support for its stance on the issues/policies it has majored in (and there's not much chance of a party being able - or even trying - to get a policy it hasn't talked about during the campaign adopted in any coalition-type negotiations. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jun 19, 2024 16:44:46 GMT
This might be a good time to track back a year or two and find those contributors who complained that Starmer wasn't doing enough, launching enough policy statements, and lacked charisma.
|
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jun 19, 2024 16:47:48 GMT
bardin1Looks like Jimmy Page in front of what I assume is Boleskine House, once owned by Aleister Crowley
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2024 16:49:37 GMT
"Tory government from 2010 to 2024 worse than any other in postwar history, says study by leading experts." The strange thing is, as a Tory voter at the time, I can't remember a more stable and quiet period where politics truly took the back seat. There were hardly any scandals, very few swivel-eyed loonies making a noise, the cabinet went largely unchanged for an entire 5 years, and basically nothing seemed to happen except large cuts to public spending. Personally I wasn't affected much by austerity (although can see the awful consequences of it now) and what with the demise of the Lib Dems as a popular party I can see why the Tories went on to win the 2015 election.
Although just a decade ago it was entirely different times.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 19, 2024 16:51:59 GMT
Assuming they have excluded the Speaker (and obviously Northern Ireland), then YouGov obviously don't see Corbyn or Galloway winning or Ladywood falling to an Independent. I don't believe the 5 RefUK. They have Lab 41 Others 36 in Islington North. Rochdale others are only 7%. |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Jun 19, 2024 16:54:27 GMT
Keynsianism as practised by Keynes was a response to the "do nothing" policies of other economists in the 1930s. Had he lived longer, he might well have changed his mind about some of his policies. He was quoted as saying “When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?” so I suspect had he been faced with the economic problems of the 1960s and 1970s he might well have offered different solutions to what we call Keynesianism. Robert Skidelsky's biography of him is well-worth reading. I agree very much Leftie. Keynes had a great mind, and some did not care for the way the US wore him down in the Bretton Woods negotiations. I’m not sure if it came from Keynes himself, but I think maybe other Keynesians did have some remedies for dealing with the inflation of the oil crisis era that can make conventional stimulus problematic because of inflation - e.g. commodity buffers, like for example energy stores* - and of course, if you put a stimulus into creating more energy supplies, that can also be counterinflationary. * I’m not too sure what the status was of our commodity buffers in the era. I know the US had them, but Nixon sold them off. The move from coal to oil, made storing energy a bit less easy, as when it was coal, we could just pile it up in heaps. (As it happens, that’s what Thatcher wound up doing, only she didn’t do it so much to give us a buffer against energy prices, but to underwrite her forthcoming battle with the miners, so that it didn’t matter if they striked). I have now put the Sidelski bio in my wishlist. While looking for it, happened that it seems there is another book by Sidelski - “the Return of the Master” - in which he appears to look at the relevance of Keynes’ ideas in the world, following the banking crash? As my earlier points might not have come across as fair, here is a quotation from Keynes, and it lifts his theory well above the vulgar economic theories (before and after him): “The most important confusion concerning the meaning and significance of the marginal efficiency of capital has ensued on the failure to see that it depends on the prospective yield of capital, and not merely on its current yield. This can be best illustrated by pointing out the effect on the marginal efficiency of capital of an expectation of changes in the prospective cost of production, whether these changes are expected to come from changes in labour cost, i.e. in the wage-unit, or from inventions and new technique. The output from equipment produced to-day will have to compete, in the course of its life, with the output from equipment produced subsequently, perhaps at a lower labour cost, perhaps by an improved technique, which is content with a lower price for its output and will be increased in quantity until the price of its output has fallen to the lower figure with which it is content.” (Keynes, General Theory, p. 125) |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jun 19, 2024 16:56:33 GMT
Bugger politics - anyone with any experience of gallstones? MRI scan suggesting I’ve got them and I’m wondering if they were the cause of the recent stay in hospital that I “bravely “ endured. Ah poor you, I had to have my gall bladder removed in the late 1990's after developing a really bad infection because of gall stones. Five weeks in hospital on intravenous antibiotics, back home a few days then a gallstone moved and blocked the bile duct, jaundice, agony and back in hospital for a complicated removal and clearing of bile duct, another three weeks in hospital. Get the thing removed as soon as you can, it will save you agony. Without working antibiotics I would have died with a burst gall bladder and sepsis, thank goodness for medical science and the NHS. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Jun 19, 2024 16:58:32 GMT
bardin1 Looks like Jimmy Page in front of what I assume is Boleskine House, once owned by Aleister Crowley We have a winner Yes, it features in 'The Song Remains the Same' concert film. My brother was invited in with his girlfriend when hitching with his guitar along Loch Ness. They were invited to engage in some ceremonies but there was a distinctly orgiastic hint to the offer and seeing the assembled rather seedy occultists he and his girlfriend made their escape....one of these times when one's life could have taken a different turn! |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Jun 19, 2024 17:14:45 GMT
Yes, the issue of easing competition is also a criticism of tariff barriers, since while it might protect local business, it might also allow them to raise prices without improving efficiency. Yes, Thatcher allowed a wage increase, notably when it came to the miners for example. She wanted to build up coal stocks before taking them on, but notably, she didn’t take them on over pay anyway, as that would have united the miners, and anyway, we entered a period of lower inflation as oil prices fell back, so the miners weren’t as interested in striking for more pay as before. Instead she made it about pit closures, which divided the miners, since not all were affected similarly. Not immediately anyway. Must admit, I didn’t know that they paid subsidies to sack people, although now that you bring it up, I can’t say that I am entirely surprised that they might! I interviewed a number of companies (well, managers) in 1991 in an EU project here in the NW, and after in the first interview I was told about the subsidy, so I asked all the other managers of other companies, and they confirmed it. The head of the project eventually found the government source, but I don't know it - most of the materials are just prints, and most are unreadable now (the discs have long gone). |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jun 19, 2024 17:18:20 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2024 17:19:07 GMT
Bugger politics - anyone with any experience of gallstones? MRI scan suggesting I’ve got them and I’m wondering if they were the cause of the recent stay in hospital that I “bravely “ endured. Ah poor you, I had to have my gall bladder removed in the late 1990's after developing a really bad infection because of gall stones. Five weeks in hospital on intravenous antibiotics, back home a few days then a gallstone moved and blocked the bile duct, jaundice, agony and back in hospital for a complicated removal and clearing of bile duct, another three weeks in hospital. Get the thing removed as soon as you can, it will save you agony. Without working antibiotics I would have died with a burst gall bladder and sepsis, thank goodness for medical science and the NHS. That’s cheered me up Mando…. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 19, 2024 17:20:19 GMT
We have three MRP surveys tonight which convey the same overall message but differ on the scale of Tory rout. I have lost all faith in MRPs to do anything except predict the overall position that the Tories will lose and Labour will win - which conventional polling is also doing. They are all over the place in terms of the exact result and individual constituencies. Maybe one will prove more accurate than the others when we see the real results, but for the moment pretty worthless as a guide to anything beyond the big picture. Maybe they still need to settle down but I agree with you currently. Taking a few of the more interesting ones: Wimbledon: Yougov- Lab 13 LD 52 MIC- Lab 17 LD 43 Ipsos- Lab 32 LD 33 Bristol Central: Yougov Lab 37 Green 50 More in Common Lab 54 Green 39 Ipsos Lab 41 Green 46 Brighton Pavilion: Yougov- Lab 28 Green 57 MIC- Lab 17 Green 64 Ipsos- Lab 51 Green 34 Islington North: Yougov- Lab 41 Others 36 MIC- Lab 73 Others 1 Ipsos- Lab 54 Others 13 Rochdale: Yougov others 7 MIC Others 2 Ipsos others 6 Sheffield Hallam Yougov Lab 43 LD 37 MIC Lab 23 LD 49 Ipsos Lab 45 LD 27 Waveney Valley Yougov Con 31 Lab 21 Reform 23 Green 21 MIC Con 34 Lab 21 Reform 13 Green 25 Ipsos Con 23 Lab 10 Reform 28 Green 33 In general I'd say More in Common look especially dodgy. Yougov and Ipsos still some major differences although instinctively Yougov look the more reliable. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 17:24:31 GMT
bardin1 Looks like Jimmy Page in front of what I assume is Boleskine House, once owned by Aleister Crowley We have a winner Yes, it features in 'The Song Remains the Same' concert film. My brother was invited in with his girlfriend when hitching with his guitar along Loch Ness. They were invited to engage in some ceremonies but there was a distinctly orgiastic hint to the offer and seeing the assembled rather seedy occultists he and his girlfriend made their escape....one of these times when one's life could have taken a different turn! They weren’t leafleting were they? (These are aspects pjw1961 et al haven’t mentioned, though PJ does seem very keen to get back out there with more leaflets, with what seems like almost indecent haste…) |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 19, 2024 17:26:41 GMT
Assuming they have excluded the Speaker (and obviously Northern Ireland), then YouGov obviously don't see Corbyn or Galloway winning or Ladywood falling to an Independent. I don't believe the 5 RefUK. They have Lab 41 Others 36 in Islington North. Rochdale others are only 7%. I've looked at the 5 Reform and only Clacton and Ashfield (which is very close) are credible. The other three are very unlikely (and don't include Tice in Boston btw). |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jun 19, 2024 17:30:20 GMT
alec. The key question is what labour would do in office. The Refuseniks, those who remind us endlessly that their much-searched consciences preclude them from voting Labour, predict disappointment. Yr interesting model is that radical change in economic policy is more likely to be generated in the vurrent conditions of fiscal restraint rather than abundance. The historical record is against you: but there are two great moments when dire economic circumstances promoted radicalism. (1). Roosevelt's 1932 New Deal. which broke with the American free-market tradition. as a response to a profound depression, one which threatened political and social collapse. The New Deal kept the Democrats in power for a generation and was respected by the Republicans until Reagan. The limits placed on it dated from 1938 when Roosevelt lost control of the Congress. (2) Labour in 1945-51 produced a New Deal, in conditions of acute fiscal exigency, riding on A wave of great popular demand for Change and a refusal to return to pre-war classical austerity. The Tories gained power but like the Republicans accepted welfareism until Thatcher. Her greatest achievement was to normalize the idea that regular taxes could only go down and that tax increases had to be created by regressive and stealthy methods. Labour's constant cry they will not increase direct taxation, VAT, etc, and their conversion to fiscal discipline indicates that their econlmic ideas are contrained by the Thatcher revoluion, which still exerts a massive influence over the economic and fiscal debate. The Refuseniks hv a point: the problem is they offer no alternative except soul-searching = abstention, or voting green.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 17:41:16 GMT
Bugger politics - anyone with any experience of gallstones? MRI scan suggesting I’ve got them and I’m wondering if they were the cause of the recent stay in hospital that I “bravely “ endured. Sorry to hear about that Crofters - haven’t experienced it myself, though my mum had her gallbladder removed when I was little. Hope it all works out well for you |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jun 19, 2024 17:43:25 GMT
Sorry @fecklessmiser too much information?
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jun 19, 2024 17:44:02 GMT
But dont despair. Labour's great achievement was to radicalise social policy under Wilson and then Blair: women's rights, abortion, divorce, gay rights, anti-racism. etc. The Tories tried under Thatcher, and still fucking try, to reverse this social revolution but it has proved durable and so far irreversible. We take much of it for granted but should respect even celebrate what was achieved. I recall the repressive social climate of my "50s upbringing. It had little to recommend it. Read a few of mercian s posts. if you can stomach them. and you realise how much has changed. |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jun 19, 2024 17:48:09 GMT
But dont despair. Labour's great achievement was to radicalise social policy under Wilson and then Blair: women's rights, abortion, divorce, gay rights, anti-racism. etc. The Tories tried under Thatcher, and still fucking try, to reverse this social revolution but it has proved durable and so far irreversible. We take much of it for granted but should respect even celebrate what was achieved. I recall the repressive social climate of my "50s upbringing. It had little to recommend it. Read a few of mercian s posts. if you can stomach them. and you realise how much has changed. yes, but wasn't abortion and divorce David Steele? |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jun 19, 2024 17:48:27 GMT
bardin1 Looks like Jimmy Page in front of what I assume is Boleskine House, once owned by Aleister Crowley A few years ago I was on holiday in Sicily, staying in a nice hotel near Cefalu. One day we went for a ramble and came upon a derelict villa in some woods. We had a wander around it but left after becoming quite uncomfortable. It was a creepy place, lots of obscene graffiti. Back to the hotel I told the owner about our adventure and he explained Crowley had lived there and turned it into a 'temple' round about 1920! |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jun 19, 2024 17:52:53 GMT
re the MRP's for Bristol Central, IPSOS looks the most likely there I think, but probably closer.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 18:03:19 GMT
I agree very much Leftie. Keynes had a great mind, and some did not care for the way the US wore him down in the Bretton Woods negotiations. I’m not sure if it came from Keynes himself, but I think maybe other Keynesians did have some remedies for dealing with the inflation of the oil crisis era that can make conventional stimulus problematic because of inflation - e.g. commodity buffers, like for example energy stores* - and of course, if you put a stimulus into creating more energy supplies, that can also be counterinflationary. * I’m not too sure what the status was of our commodity buffers in the era. I know the US had them, but Nixon sold them off. The move from coal to oil, made storing energy a bit less easy, as when it was coal, we could just pile it up in heaps. (As it happens, that’s what Thatcher wound up doing, only she didn’t do it so much to give us a buffer against energy prices, but to underwrite her forthcoming battle with the miners, so that it didn’t matter if they striked). I have now put the Sidelski bio in my wishlist. While looking for it, happened that it seems there is another book by Sidelski - “the Return of the Master” - in which he appears to look at the relevance of Keynes’ ideas in the world, following the banking crash? As my earlier points might not have come across as fair, here is a quotation from Keynes, and it lifts his theory well above the vulgar economic theories (before and after him): “The most important confusion concerning the meaning and significance of the marginal efficiency of capital has ensued on the failure to see that it depends on the prospective yield of capital, and not merely on its current yield. This can be best illustrated by pointing out the effect on the marginal efficiency of capital of an expectation of changes in the prospective cost of production, whether these changes are expected to come from changes in labour cost, i.e. in the wage-unit, or from inventions and new technique. The output from equipment produced to-day will have to compete, in the course of its life, with the output from equipment produced subsequently, perhaps at a lower labour cost, perhaps by an improved technique, which is content with a lower price for its output and will be increased in quantity until the price of its output has fallen to the lower figure with which it is content.” (Keynes, General Theory, p. 125) Yes, looks like Keynes was aware of the issue of how existing investments may have to compete with a more optimal subsequent deploying of capital. (It’s an interesting problem: e.g. the later entrant may have advantages as Keynes outlined, but the existing equipment for the earlier entrant may already have been paid off, for example). Yes, the issue of easing competition is also a criticism of tariff barriers, since while it might protect local business, it might also allow them to raise prices without improving efficiency. Yes, Thatcher allowed a wage increase, notably when it came to the miners for example. She wanted to build up coal stocks before taking them on, but notably, she didn’t take them on over pay anyway, as that would have united the miners, and anyway, we entered a period of lower inflation as oil prices fell back, so the miners weren’t as interested in striking for more pay as before. Instead she made it about pit closures, which divided the miners, since not all were affected similarly. Not immediately anyway. Must admit, I didn’t know that they paid subsidies to sack people, although now that you bring it up, I can’t say that I am entirely surprised that they might! I interviewed a number of companies (well, managers) in 1991 in an EU project here in the NW, and after in the first interview I was told about the subsidy, so I asked all the other managers of other companies, and they confirmed it. The head of the project eventually found the government source, but I don't know it - most of the materials are just prints, and most are unreadable now (the discs have long gone). I recall a documentary in which one of Thatcher’s inner circle had done this big chart, showing how in his opinion, all the state’s problems came back to the unions, a chart which became quite influential, hence Thatcher’s policies. (Others have argued though, that she didn’t continue to diminish to the same extent the unions and associations of the professional classes). |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Jun 19, 2024 18:13:10 GMT
We have three MRP surveys tonight which convey the same overall message but differ on the scale of Tory rout. I have lost all faith in MRPs to do anything except predict the overall position that the Tories will lose and Labour will win - which conventional polling is also doing. They are all over the place in terms of the exact result and individual constituencies. Maybe one will prove more accurate than the others when we see the real results, but for the moment pretty worthless as a guide to anything beyond the big picture. Don't lose the faith in methodology, just in the polling companies. As I said earlier, it is a very expensive methodology if the company doesn't have the skill set. If they don't, and don't want to spend the money (they don't get enough), they just run the routine and it goes easily wrong. I run a test on the cost of using confidence intervals. To do it properly, it would be even more expensive, but better (I ran it on the data available on the 2019 elections for the reliability). |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 18:17:21 GMT
We have three MRP surveys tonight which convey the same overall message but differ on the scale of Tory rout. I have lost all faith in MRPs to do anything except predict the overall position that the Tories will lose and Labour will win - which conventional polling is also doing. They are all over the place in terms of the exact result and individual constituencies. Maybe one will prove more accurate than the others when we see the real results, but for the moment pretty worthless as a guide to anything beyond the big picture. Patrick English of Yougov, talking about MRPs, was just on the radio saying that one of the confounding factors is that as it’s a “change” election, votes are splintering off in various different ways, rather than the more simple and familiar shifts between parties that more normally apply. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 19, 2024 18:37:34 GMT
Where was this debate [the Climate and Nature Debate]? I'd be interested in listening if it is/was on some medium that I have access to. It was organised by Wildlife and Countryside Link (umbrella organisation for a bunch of wildlife and conservation organisations), held in Chester and broadcast on Youtube the following day. I think it's still available via this link. If you do listen I'd be interested in your impressions. It's a shame the organisers didn't manage to secure more publicity for it - whilst I regard the data about the percentage of voters who say they are concerned about issue X or that their vote will be influenced by issue X as next-door to meaningless I do think there was a much larger potential audience for this kind of debate than will ever see or hear the one that took place on Monday. I watched the debate. It was well chaired and organized. I thought the politicians did a reasonable job - they did all care about environmental issues, and as someone said it's all very well for Ramsey since he doesn't have to actually run the country. Since the organizers and the audience, panel, and questioners came from wildlife and conservation organizations (as it says on the tin) this was the focus, whereas my primary interest is in action on climate. The conflicts between climate action and environmental concerns, and between farmers and environmental concerns were unsurprisingly skated over. It would also be good to see the audience challenged by the hard headed populists who don't care a shit about any of it, which would force a discussion about costs, benefits, and trade offs. Concern about food security while rejecting concern about energy security is not intellectually sustainable. And implicit in the better deal for farmers and working together with farmers is higher food costs. And of course so are carbon taxes, whether direct or import. This is not to say I am against this - I'm pretty well off and environmentally concerned - but it is a political problem in the world where many people are financially struggling. While it's understandable that people want to evade conflicts of interest and look for points of common interest, it doesn't mean such conflicts aren't real. There was some internal reflection and criticism about how to exercise influence, and the need for joined up thinking. This is always true, but it's rarely recognized that joined up thinking is bloody difficult. Problems are broken down into pieces for good reason, as it is easier to think about and tackle them. One of the difficulties climate science has faced is exactly the need to bring together geologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, biologists, botanists, geochemists in order to understand the climate system as a whole as it is all interrelated, with multiple feedbacks. And then the complex links can only be modelled in a simplified fashion by supercomputers, and this is not explicable to the general public and leads to traction given to denial and obfuscation. Still I felt is was worthwhile watching the debate - not a wasted hour and a half - and much better than the trite election debates elsewhere. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. |
|
