UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[mrpurple]

Reports eh? I don't take a blind bit of notice of them anymore. They are all manipulated to show what the "sponsors" of the report want it to show and should be taken with a pinch of salt IMO.

For example some years ago lots of money was spent, by those with a vested interest, Centre of Economic Business Research, ferry and tobacco companies etc, doing various reports into the proposed Abolition of Duty Free. Up to 23K jobs would be lost in Britain and 5k in Kent alone were the findings.

Thinking this was a bit over-dramatic I managed to get myself officially involved in some research into this... I can't say how may jobs were lost in Britain as a whole but I found 4 in Kent (the guys who loaded the containers on the ships)which kinda upset the people I was working with as they were trying to get lots of funding for retraining these 000's of workers. Local MEP (with a Masters in Economics from the LSE)publicly ridiculed my findings but held great respect for the researchers - don't remember him publicly eating humble pie though.

Reports? Bah humbug

[brenflys777]

AJS- said:

It assumes immigrants overall consumption is 80% of natives. Why 80%? There is no real data so it's basically just a guess. I can imagine that it might be a lot less for some.

As I said I'm not saying the report is wrong I'm just saying that like most of these studies it's meaningless because it's based on such unreliable data and such wild assumptions that you might as well just ask some people in a pub.

Thats the point I was trying - probably poorly - to make, the assumptions involve guesses, but the interpretation is that it is a factual report. I'm 80% certain that this reports conclusion was written before the analysis. (with a margin of error of around 20% )

[AJS-]

mattmurdock said:

Guam said:

AJS- said:

It assumes immigrants overall consumption is 80% of natives. Why 80%? There is no real data so it's basically just a guess. I can imagine that it might be a lot less for some.

As I said I'm not saying the report is wrong I'm just saying that like most of these studies it's meaningless because it's based on such unreliable data and such wild assumptions that you might as well just ask some people in a pub.

C'mon, shame on you both, especially Guam who purports to be a statistician. Are you really saying that this report, which lists out its methodology, takes conservative estimates and has robustness checks on the assumptions and conclusions is little more than guesswork or anecdotal evidence from a man down a pub.

Shame on you both .

I can't speak for Guam, but that's exactly what I'm saying. Yes.

Do you know what a "robustness check" is?

[don4l]

Zod said:

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Here's a thought. If the Kippers on this thread (and lets be fair, they are the majority)

Well, the fact that they are a majority shouldn't come as a surprise.

After all, they did get 51% of the vote in the Clacton by-election.


This thread simply reflects public opinion.

You think the majority of voters are UKIP supporters?

It seems to be heading that way.

Their support has been growing for more than 18 months. When will it stop?

[Zod]

Oh, you actually do!

[2013BRM]

Currently in Melbourne, my first visit to Oz, it has a massive Asian population here but it has merged perfectly, this is, what I imagine a controlled immigration policy hopes to achieve.

[league67]

Kippers are so funny. IF the report was showing that immigrants are drain and take more out, it would be 'See, Lord-Supreme-Commander Farage was right all along'. But because it's not, we have 'oh, it doesn't matter if they put more in than they take out, it's about control'. You just couldn't make it up.

Bless your tiny little purple socks for providing endless entertainment.

[Zod]

Guam said:

Zod said:

Oh, you actually do!

And that makes him as wrong as you Zod, many voters do not support any party and vote the way the circumstances will dictate.

and many don't vote.

[McWigglebum4th]

league67 said:

Kippers are so funny. IF the report was showing that immigrants are drain and take more out, it would be 'See, Lord-Supreme-Commander Farage was right all along'. But because it's not, we have 'oh, it doesn't matter if they put more in than they take out, it's about control'. You just couldn't make it up.

Bless your tiny little purple socks for providing endless entertainment.

Yep you are correct

We must shut down all passport controls at all ports

as controlling who comes into the country is racist

[brenflys777]

don4l said:

It seems to be heading that way.

Their support has been growing for more than 18 months. When will it stop?

The latest polling from Ashcroft seems to suggest that UKIP are now at 20% or more in seven out of twelve Con/Lab marginals. The increasing UKIP support must be making Cameron's fixed term parliament seem a year too long!

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

[FiF]

AJS- said:

Guam said:

AJS- said:

Picking these reports apart is pointless. They'll find a way to show whatever they want.

The point is our loss of democratic control over immigration, not some apparent cost or benefit of the current arrangements.

Not to mention the ONS admits it has no accurate data on migration it doesn't know how many people are here and /or have left.

Any report based around ONS data on 3 key areas of the economy, Health, Policing and immigration has to be viewed with a truckload of salt (by their own admission and pointed out repeatedly on several threads).

They've got this though



Science! Bags of it.


I might be a dumb kipper who has been left behind in the intervening years, but I studied enough statistics during my economics degree to know that when you see this sort of thing it's likely to be complete nonsense.

That equation and the others are there and positioned where they are in the report for one very simple reason. So that a significant number of readers go " well they must know what they are on about" and immediately skip to the conclusions.

And reading those conclusions in line with the body of the report and in particular the 15 nested assumptions all in a row then the inescapable conclusion that this is a report to provide a specified desired answer.

Not going to waste any more time on it.

[FredClogs]

I'm still not understanding the basic hypocrisy and paradox at the heart of Kipper ideology, i.e They support free market economics, movement of capital and open border less trade but want to restrict the movement of labour and human resource. It makes no sense.

[WinstonWolf]

FredClogs said:

I'm still not understanding the basic hypocrisy and paradox at the heart of Kipper ideology, i.e They support free market economics, movement of capital and open border less trade but want to restrict the movement of labour and human resource. It makes no sense.

To you maybe...

[zygalski]

If they brought back the glamorous railways policy, I'd vote for 'em tomorrow.

[mrpurple]

FredClogs said:

I'm still not understanding the basic hypocrisy and paradox at the heart of Kipper ideology, i.e They support free market economics, movement of capital and open border less trade but want to restrict control the movement of labour and human resource. It makes no sense.

[mattmurdock]

AJS- said:

I can't speak for Guam, but that's exactly what I'm saying. Yes.

Do you know what a "robustness check" is?

OK, then surely the same concerns apply to any reports claiming immigration is causing an issue. Or any of the anecdotal examples people (presumably with the same qualifications as the mythical 'man down the pub') are listing as 'fact' on this and other threads.

Just throwing up your hands and saying that all of it is guesswork is not particularly helpful, especially when simultaneously trying to argue for controls on immigration as an 'obvious' solution to an 'obvious' problem.

And yes, I do know what a "robustness check" is .

[FredClogs]

mrpurple said:

FredClogs said:

I'm still not understanding the basic hypocrisy and paradox at the heart of Kipper ideology, i.e They support free market economics, movement of capital and open border less trade but want to restrict control the movement of labour and human resource. It makes no sense.

I don't think changing "restrict" to "control" makes it any more clearer to me or the man on the Clapham omnibus.

When most of UKIPs other rhetoric on business and economics is about removing restrictions to open market ideology, reducing government interference in the way business operates - why is it that in the particular area of human resource and labour they have a policy of control but aim to release control in other areas of the UK economy?

What's going on here?

[FiF]

Guam said:

mattmurdock said:

OK, then surely the same concerns apply to any reports claiming immigration is causing an issue. Or any of the anecdotal examples people (presumably with the same qualifications as the mythical 'man down the pub') are listing as 'fact' on this and other threads.

Just throwing up your hands and saying that all of it is guesswork is not particularly helpful, especially when simultaneously trying to argue for controls on immigration as an 'obvious' solution to an 'obvious' problem.

And yes, I do know what a "robustness check" is .

Cant speak for others but I would take the same view wherever the report originated and whatever its political purpose is (and I suspect AJS and Fif would do the same).

Agree with that Guam.

[mattmurdock]

FiF said:

Guam said:

mattmurdock said:

OK, then surely the same concerns apply to any reports claiming immigration is causing an issue. Or any of the anecdotal examples people (presumably with the same qualifications as the mythical 'man down the pub') are listing as 'fact' on this and other threads.

Just throwing up your hands and saying that all of it is guesswork is not particularly helpful, especially when simultaneously trying to argue for controls on immigration as an 'obvious' solution to an 'obvious' problem.

And yes, I do know what a "robustness check" is .

Cant speak for others but I would take the same view wherever the report originated and whatever its political purpose is (and I suspect AJS and Fif would do the same).

Agree with that Guam.

So in essence, you are saying that the available data is not robust enough to form a conclusion as to whether immigrants are a positive or negative factor to the UK?

Why then campaign so hard to control immigration, if it is not possible to establish if that control will be positive or negative?

Taking this stance to the logical conclusion, surely it is too difficult for the man on the Clapham omnibus to pass any judgement on the EU or immigration, as it is clearly too complicated and any assessment of positive or negative would simply be guesswork?

I have an inherent distrust of 'social sciences' and the woolly nature of the data they use. I also have a strong interest in the inherent bias of the human experience - I like to try to put aside any emotional thinking and weigh the available data as factually as I possibly can.

It seems to me that the assumptions in this paper are not totally ludicrous, and that they have taken the only data they have available and applied a reasonable methodology to it. I absolutely do not believe that the conclusions they find are objective fact, or a complete picture of reality. However, I think they may be a better indicator than some chap in the pub who swears blind his mate Roger is unemployed because of all the bleeding immigrants stealing his job/house/wife.

[FredClogs]

mattmurdock said:

So in essence, you are saying that the available data is not robust enough to form a conclusion as to whether immigrants are a positive or negative factor to the UK?

Why then campaign so hard to control immigration, if it is not possible to establish if that control will be positive or negative?

Because definitely not racist, if that's what you're thinking, let's not allow it to be said that there is any prejudice going on at the core of the UKIP mandate, no siree, definately not.