The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[OverTheBorder]

Do you think you know more about politics or streaming boxes? The numbers say we've never had a worse government but you're still loyal.

What numbers out of interest?

The numbers that suit his argument I guess.

[Doobs]

Yes politicians of all parties have been doing a terrible job :|

I don't understand that graph.  What do the letters stand for?  Where did you get it? 

I am guessing an IFS report, but googling one of their reports shows AHC is after housing costs, and BHC is before housing costs.

Looks pretty flat to me.  What does absolute low income mean here?  It suggests that it doesn't include inflation, but that would be absurd?   Does it include working/ other benefits too?  

[TightEnd]

Richmond is a wake-up call for Labour's Brexit strategy,

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/12/richmond-wake-call-labours-brexit-strategy

[TightEnd]

Whether it’s Brexit or Trump, populists are such sore winners

"Unlikely political victors in the US and UK are now even angrier: because, robbed of the ability to blame everything on others, they can no longer play the victim"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/02/brexit-trump-populists-sore-winners-play-victim?CMP=twt_gu

[TightEnd]

conservative lead slumps to 12%

YouGov:

CON 39 (-2)
LAB 27 (-1)
LD 9 (=)
UKIP 14 (+2)
GRN 4 (=)
SNP 5 (=)

28th-29th Nov
N=1,624
Tabs https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wemnebeo20/TimesResults_161129_VI_Trackers_W.pdf …

[TightEnd]

The big prize that the Liberal Democrats can now dream of:

https://www.facebook.com/stephenkbush/posts/563575867174479

[TightEnd]

this is a thought provoking read

Labour MPs in big cities are worried about the Liberals, Labour MPs in small towns are worried about Ukip:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/12/after-richmond-park-labour-mps-are-haunted-familiar-ghost

[TightEnd]

and related to that

Zac Goldsmith's defeat will worry Conservatives, but the more important message is the fragmentation of the left

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/12/zac-goldsmith-defeated-liberal-democrats?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/zacgoldsmithisdefeatedbytheliberaldemocratslabournotthetoriesshouldbemostworriedbytherichmondparkresult

[TightEnd]

this made me chuckle, not from a partisan perspective just the starkness of the reply

Extract from Eurostar's submission to the Parliamentary inquiry into Brexit

Click to see full-size image.

[kukushkin88]

Do you think you know more about politics or streaming boxes? The numbers say we've never had a worse government but you're still loyal.

What numbers out of interest?

Essentially all of them. Worsening living standards over a protracted period for the first time since the 2nd great war. It would be easier to try and think of something that's going well, other than very rich people getting a little bit richer. Number of homeless. Missed economic targets, NHS missing more targets than ever before by bigger margins. Deregulation of the Environment with relentless attacks on the public sector.

[Jon MW]

Yes politicians of all parties have been doing a terrible job :|

I don't understand that graph.  What do the letters stand for?  Where did you get it? 

I am guessing an IFS report, but googling one of their reports shows AHC is after housing costs, and BHC is before housing costs.

Looks pretty flat to me.  What does absolute low income mean here?  It suggests that it doesn't include inflation, but that would be absurd?   Does it include working/ other benefits too?  

Absolute low income means relative to a baseline level; typically 60% of the median income level for a base year. Relative poverty is based on 60% of the median income level for each year for comparison. i.e. when they talk about "absolute" - it's still actually "relative".

The reason why you don't measure absolute levels of poverty over time is because the figure becomes so small as to be meaningless. Additionally the absolute levels of poverty up to the late 19th century were only alleviated by charity whereas from the mid 20th century they are increasingly mitigated by state benefits.

The effect of benefits and the fact that they only report on different forms of relative poverty are the reason why you would expect any reports like this to exclude benefits. e.g. if you get a benefit because you're poor then it it would affect the median level of income; but that's what you're using to define being poor to start with; so it has to be excluded.

[rfgqqabc]

Yes politicians of all parties have been doing a terrible job :|

I don't understand that graph.  What do the letters stand for?  Where did you get it?  

I am guessing an IFS report, but googling one of their reports shows AHC is after housing costs, and BHC is before housing costs.

Looks pretty flat to me.  What does absolute low income mean here?  It suggests that it doesn't include inflation, but that would be absurd?   Does it include working/ other benefits too?  

How else can 85% of people be receiving absolute low income though. What is absolute low income? If it means the same as below than that graph has to be bullshit right? Lies dammed lies and statistics springs to mind.

"This release presents three main measures of low income:
 someone is considered to be in relative low income if they receive less than 60
per cent of the average income1
 in the year in question.
 someone is considered to be in absolute low income if they receive less than
60 per cent of average income1
 in 2010/11 adjusted by inflation.
 income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, ranges from zero
(when everybody has identical incomes) to 100 per cent (when all income
goes to only one person)."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206850/first_release_1112.pdf

Median annual salary in the UK in 1961 was ~£1000. Did 85% of people really earn less than that? the sixteen year flat line and disparity between BHC and AHC are quite worrying.


How do 85% of people earn 60% of the Median income when the Median income is middle point in the data set? I feel really dumb having wrote that out but something doesn't seem to add up.

[DungBeetle]

Do you think you know more about politics or streaming boxes? The numbers say we've never had a worse government but you're still loyal.

What numbers out of interest?

Essentially all of them. Worsening living standards over a protracted period for the first time since the 2nd great war. It would be easier to try and think of something that's going well, other than very rich people getting a little bit richer. Number of homeless. Missed economic targets, NHS missing more targets than ever before by bigger margins. Deregulation of the Environment with relentless attacks on the public sector.

How are you measuring living standards. I think the Tories have hiding their poor performance behind Brexit but real wage levels have been increasing since about 2010, albeit slowly.  I agree missing economic targets time and again and by big margins is really poor.

[Jon MW]

...

Median annual salary in the UK in 1961 was ~£1000. Did 85% of people really earn less than that? ...

How do 85% of people earn 60% of the Median income when the Median income is middle point in the data set? I feel really dumb having wrote that out but something doesn't seem to add up.

1961 wasn't the base year would be my conclusion.

Relative poverty is based on the number of people earning less than 60% of the median for that year - that might be relevant to look at how people are doing compared with everyone else; but this gives a better historical overview (despite still not measuring 'actual' poverty).

[Doobs]

Do you think you know more about politics or streaming boxes? The numbers say we've never had a worse government but you're still loyal.

What numbers out of interest?

Essentially all of them. Worsening living standards over a protracted period for the first time since the 2nd great war. It would be easier to try and think of something that's going well, other than very rich people getting a little bit richer. Number of homeless. Missed economic targets, NHS missing more targets than ever before by bigger margins. Deregulation of the Environment with relentless attacks on the public sector.

How are you measuring living standards. I think the Tories have hiding their poor performance behind Brexit but real wage levels have been increasing since about 2010, albeit slowly.  I agree missing economic targets time and again and by big margins is really poor.

Real wage growth is still negative since 2007 though?  Property prices/rents are going to be higher.  Benefits have been cut pretty heavily in recent years too.  And if average wages are down in real terms, I would be pretty surprised if those at the bottom are doing better.

I am not at all convinced of what that graph shows and nobody has linked us to the definitions.  But it appears to be showing a very long period to mask what is happening over the last few years.  Of course we are better off than in 1961, but that is no target.

FWIW I am not blaming any party for the bad economic performance, it is what it is, and likely would have been bad whoever was in charge over the last 10 years.  Brexit is a different thing entirely.