ComRes had a new EU telephone poll in this morning’s Daily Mail. Topline figures are REMAIN 52%(-1), LEAVE 41%(+3), Don’t know 7%(-2). Tabs are here.

Note that this poll is now adjusted for likelihood to vote, using ComRes’s turnout model based on socio-economic factors, like age and class (the changes are adjusted to reflect this). Note that adjusting turnout based on ComRes’s model has marginally increased support for Remain (before the adjustment the figures would have been 51 and 41).

There’s a broad assumption that differental turnout is more likely to favour Leave in the EU referendum campaign, largely based on the fact that polls normally show Leave voters claiming they are more likely to be 10/10 certain to vote, and that Leave voters are older. I’m not so sure. Self-reported likelihood is a blunt tool (people who say they are 10/10 certain to vote are not really much more likely than 8/10 or 9/10 people), and the age skew that should favour Leave in terms of turnout (older people are more likely to vote, and more Leave) will to some degree be cancelled out by the social class and educational skews that favour Remain (middle class people and graduates are more likely to vote, and more Remain).

On the subject of education, YouGov also had an interesting article up today. Like Populus and ICM they have carried out parallel telephone and online surveys, but unlike other such tests which have found a big gulf between phone and online results YouGov found results that were very similar to each other: both phone and online polls found a small lead for Leave.

This result wasn’t just the weighting (even before weighting the raw sample was a lot more “leave” than the raw samples from other phone polls) suggesting it is something to do with the sampling. Obviously we can’t tell for certain what the reason is – the most obvious difference is that the YouGov poll was conducted over the period of a fortnight, so was slower than most telephone polls and there was more opportunity to ring back people who were unavailable on the first call – but there could be other differences to do with quotas or the proportion of mobile calls (the YouGov poll was about a third mobile, two-thirds landline. My understanding is most phone polls are about 50/50 now, though MORI is about 20/80).

Looking at the actual demographics of the sample YouGov highlight the difference between their landline sample and the samples for the Populus paper looking at phone/online differences – specifically on education. In the Populus telephone samples between 44-46% of people had degrees, whereas the actual figure in the Census and Annual Population Survey is around 30%. The YouGov phone sample had a lower proportion of people with degrees to begin with, and weighted it to the national figure.

There is a clear correlation between education and attitudes to the EU referendum (in the YouGov polls there was a Leave lead of about 30 points among people who left school at 16 and a Remain lead of 33 points among those who were in educated beyond the age of twenty. This is partially to do with age, but it remains true even within people of the same age) so samples are too educated or not educated enough it could easily make a difference. As it is we’ve only got education data for the Populus polling – we don’t know if there’s the same skew in other phone polls, or how much of a difference it would make if corrected, but different levels of education within achieved samples is a further hypothesis that could explain that ongoing difference between phone and telephone samples for the EU referendum.


291 Responses to “EU Polling Update – ComRes and turnout, YouGov and education”

1 2 3 4 5 6
  1. Muddy Waters

    There have been a number of ICM polls that have gone missing recently, especially Scottish ones. It’s probably due to their horrible new website which seems to have lost a lot of stuff in the switch-over. It may be that the latest ICM for the Scotsman will appear in time:

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/support-for-remain-strengthening-in-scotland-new-poll-shows-1-4135103

    but I can’t find the tables for their previous poll for them in March and other Scottish polls from ICM have only popped up in odd places before.

  2. Robert Newark: “You omitted the well respected climatologist, Piers Corbyn, brother of Jeremy, from your fruitcake ingredients. Any particular reason? Because Lawson is a Tory and Corbyn isn’t, perhaps?”

    I didn’t mention him firstly because I’ve never heard of him and secondly because i provided an example, not a list.

    But I’ve now googled him and found that he does indeed merit inclusion on a list of fruitcakes. An Observer interview in January reported that he believes Margaret Thatcher was responsible for the idea of global warming:

    “Margaret Thatcher came up with her most devious plan to deindustrialise Britain and defeat the miners once and for all: she would popularise and endorse the science of man-made climate change, as a way of converting Britain from coal to nuclear power.”

    There’s nothing in the interview to suggest he is a “well respected climatologist,” just an amiable oddball.

  3. RHYFELWYR
    “Sutherland is not an insignificant area of land, btw. You could easily fit the whole of Greater London in it with plenty of room to spare. Or Birmingham about nine times over.
    See also Powys, and other parts with lots of space and hardly any people in them.”

    You’re quite sanguine about having all this concreted over to house Eastern Europeans then?

  4. Roger Mexico
    Really appreciate your posts and analysis
    Clear logical and no waffle
    Thanks
    When do you think poll adjustment really begins to invalidate the results?
    As you say the adjustments are based on reliving the last election
    Do you know has that held true in the past?-forgive me if this is a stupid question .I am very much a poll newbie

  5. RHYFELWYR

    @”See also Powys, and other parts with lots of space and hardly any people in them.”

    Try getting out of the city now & again. Go for a walk, join your local Wildlife Trust, visit a National Park-just drive to a high wild place -get out , look & listen.

    You just might begin to understand what occupies the few real wild spaces that “people” have left unconcreted.

    The WHOLE POINT is that there aren’t any “people in them”.

  6. Colin

    Exactly we need our wild places simply because it’s where you can go to get peace and quiet and renew the spiritual batteries.

  7. CANDY:
    I’m not really sure I understand the architecture of your thinking. You started off by talking about the crowded south east, and then went onto fishing. Do you think that giving Scotland exclusive control over fisheries will rebalance the poopulation spread of the UK? I for one find it a little far-fetched to think that, not least because even if there were a sudden upwelling of jobs, those jobs don’t necessarily have to be filled in Scotland. If fisherman can and do sail from Pontevedra to Portree, there’s no reason why others can’t sail from Lancashire to Lochinver.

    Also, you talk about EU membership being responsible for the south-east’s continued crowding / dominance, whilst at the same time giving an example of how a major employer recently upped sticks from London to Manchester. The curious thing is that we are still in the EU, and this happened anyway. Is this not an example of where a place other than London with good infrastructure has partially captured a major industry? For me, this is evidence that widening infrastructure spending gives industries more than one option. It seems to have precious little to do with the EU.

  8. TOH

    It is the blindness of people who describe spaces without people in them as “empty” , or “wasteland” , because they don’t understand that those “spaces” are occupied by myriads of other species which is so depressing.

  9. I’m a big fan of wilderness, but some of the empty spaces really are wastelands. We aren’t talking ancient forests, we’re talking birdless, sheep-grazed silence. The mismanagement of non-urban land is profound and widespread.

    Don’t get misty-eyed about rolling Powys hills or grouse moors. They are overmanaged ecological deserts often built for wealthy landowners’ interests and contribute to flooding.

  10. Alun
    It seems that Powys has quite a good biodiversity action plan to preserve what is there already. No mention of deserts at all.
    http://www.powys.gov.uk/en/countryside-outdoors/biodiversity-in-powys/local-biodiversity-action-plan/

  11. @alun009

    ‘re fisheries, I’m not even sure that it would be a devolved matter post Brexit as access to them ( and the reciprocal access to Norwegian waters) will be an important external trade negotiating issue which is a reserved matter.

  12. Good morning all and hope you all had a lovely weekend.

    Reading some of the comments regarding open spaces and population dispersal in the UK was rather interesting so I’m going to show you two very interesting photos of England’s most populated area, London and Scotland’s most populated area Glasgow with Celtic park I must add.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/13/article-2579947-1C402F5F00000578-462_634x475.jpg

    http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01602/FOG-620_1602401a.jpg

    You will notice the horizon goes on and on in the London photo and in the Glasgow photo it comes to an abrupt thanks to the Campsie Fells.

    The Campsie Fells along with the Kirkpatrick’s which are located in Scotland’s most densely populated area cover a larger rural area than anywhere in England except from parts of Cumbria and even at that the Campsies are quite small compared to the vast empty lands further north in Scotland.

    Scotland has loads of empty lands but very little of it can be built on due to its geography even Scotland’s largest city is limited where it can spread to.

    When people move to the UK they mostly move to over populated urban areas which are already struggling to cope with increased population trends. Simply building more homes in rural areas ain’t going to solve the problem unless you want some peeps to live like mountain goats peering down on ol Glasgow from the Campsies.

  13. ALUN009
    I’m a big fan of wilderness, but some of the empty spaces really are wastelands. We aren’t talking ancient forests, we’re talking birdless, sheep-grazed silence. The mismanagement of non-urban land is profound and widespread.

    “Don’t get misty-eyed about rolling Powys hills or grouse moors. They are overmanaged ecological deserts often built for wealthy landowners’ interests and contribute to flooding”
    ________

    You might be a big fan of the wilderness but you’re turning the debate into a class thing and I very much doubt the ecology of Powys is suffering from guys running about the land in itch tweed trying to have it on with some wabbits.

  14. I’m at work so a detailed answer is impossible right now. For now, try reading Feral by George Monbiot. Don’t pay much attention to local government websites: there are political reasons to talk up their own competence, as I’m sure everyone can appreciate.

    And I’m sorry, but if there is a “class” element here, it doesn’t shut down the conversation. Sporting estates are disastrous for ecology, and sheep farming is too. Now I don’t really see the class aspect of the latter, but there is obviously one in the former. Sorry but it is not taboo to criticise landowners. It’s highly relevant to the discussion of countryside being a wild and biodiverse space or not. The fact is that not all rural spaces are the same.

  15. Try getting out of the city now & again. Go for a walk, join your local Wildlife Trust, visit a National Park-just drive to a high wild place -get out , look & listen.

    You just might begin to understand what occupies the few real wild spaces that “people” have left unconcreted.

    The WHOLE POINT is that there aren’t any “people in them”.

    I was in Powys on Friday. I live not far from there. It occupies roughly a quarter of Wales, and you can drive for half an hour in parts of it and see just a couple of isolated farmhouses. (Try the Cwmystwyth-Rhayader road for illustration. Or the Abergwesyn-Tregaron road. Or take yourself up the Garth. Vast spaces of not very much at all.)

    BTW – for me to ‘get out of the city’? I’d have to live in one. I don’t. I live in the countryside. Have done my whole life barring a few years in the South East. Which is overcrowded in parts, but hardly representative of the country as a whole.

  16. ALUN

    The Wildlife Trusts of UK are not “local government ” agencies.

    The Powys website which Robert & I brought to your attention lists Protected Species & Protected habitats in Powys. These are not a question of “competence”-they are a question of the Law.

  17. ALUN

    I’m at work as well and I know the difficulties from jumping between UKPR and drawing up a risk assessment on the same screen but you know I try my best.

    I’m no fan of sporting estates for the higher brow in society and in particularly in Scotland many estates and indeed some islands have a bigger emphasises on discouraging human settlement and instead focus more on reintroducing weird and wonderful wildlife and shooting capercaillie’s up the arse.

    However you talk about sporting estates and sheep farms being a disaster for the ecology but you seem to be quite contempt with urban-sprawl. What’s more damaging, 4,000 new homes built on greenbelt land or a sporting estate which even I know it’s only a small part of the estate which is given over to hunting etc.

    Sheep farmers, I thought sheep were free to roam on none productive farm land? all they do is chew short grass but yes in the past people in the Highlands were shunted off the land due to more profitable sheep coming in but back to today we need to strike a balance with preserving our wild and rural lands and ensuring we build enough homes for an increasing population and I will say it…. Controlling Immigration into the UK has to be part of the equation and simply destroying our rural environment to meet the demands of ever increasing migration into the UK simply ain’t good enough.

  18. AC
    “However you talk about sporting estates and sheep farms being a disaster for the ecology but you seem to be quite contempt with urban-sprawl.”

    Actually, no. You’re putting words in my mouth. I’m not offering simple solutions to complex problems. All I’m saying is that all is not as idyllic in the countryside as some might imagine.

    And personally I’m wrestling with html today :)

  19. ALUN009

    @”try reading Feral by George Monbiot. ”

    The biodiversity which has arisen after the the Last Glacial Maximum is a product of Neolithic land use. Yes it has been impoverished by modern farming practices.

    But returning to the Paleolithic in some bizarre version of Jurrasic Park is not possible, or helpful :-

    https://anewnatureblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/feral-by-george-monbiot-a-review/

  20. Rhyfelwyr

    Powys should be OK, through a combination of the rebound from the Ice Age and sea level rise.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/6226537/England-is-sinking-while-Scotland-rises-above-sea-levels-according-to-new-study.html

    But the population pressure might be immense, as those from the new Doggerland in the overcrowded SE of England need to relocate – or start living in boats. :-)

  21. COLIN:
    “returning to the Paleolithic”

    Again, what is it with people leaping to opposite extremes?
    I’m identifying a problem, not advocating Jurassic Park.

    I know what Monbiot recommends is not something that everyone would want, but prior to that discussion we need to agree what we admire or condemn about the way we currently do things.

    I’m not advocating both rewinding AND urban sprawl ;)
    Now please forgive me, I really must do some work.

  22. *rewilding

  23. 2nd tranche from the ICM/Scotsman poll – on EUref

    Headline figures –

    Now : Remain 54% : Leave 32% : DK 14%
    Mar – Remain 50% : Leave 35% : DK 15%

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/support-for-remain-strengthening-in-scotland-new-poll-shows-1-4135103#ixzz49SijuO52

  24. Pretty sure there was no mention of the EU existing in Kevin Costner’s documentary Waterworld. So there you go, outcome predicted.

  25. @Rhyfelwyr – “Sure it is. Bits of it are very crowded. Bits are almost empty. Take Sutherland as an example. It has an average population density less than that of Siberia.”

    You have clearly understood my point, although it sounds like you don’t think you have.

  26. Anyone else following the Austrian presidential election results? Looks like its going right down to the wire, with postal votes potentially deciding it. The success of the Austrian Freedom Party is the latest success for Far Right parties in a series of results across Europe since the refugee crisis last year.

    If Hofer goes on to win for the Freedom Party it’ll be the first far-right President in Europe since the 2nd World War.

  27. To top and tail my comments on population density, we seem to be moving towards some kind of argued consensus.

    My point was merely to demonstrate that parts of the UK, and more specifically England, are very densely populated in global terms. Powys and Sutherland have been thrown is as specific counter examples, but I simply take this to illustrate my point – that parts of the UK, and more specifically England, are very densely populated in global terms.

    My interest in this is primarily how this affects public perceptions of immigration, and by extension, the vote on June 23rd. While in broad brush terms it may be possible to argue that support for UKIP and Brexit mirrors population density (higher in southern England, low in Scotland) it can’t be that simple. London is clearly the stand out counter example, although there may be reasons within the social and ethnic mix here to explain the difference.

    Politics is never that simple as to have only a single explanatory correlation, so in a sense, talking about population density is something of a red herring, but it is an important issue. I’m struck by how many posters from less populated parts of the UK dismiss population concerns, claiming there is abundant space, and I suspect this betrays an ignorance about life in other parts of the UK where pressures are more intense.

    My personal belief is that the rise of UKIP, and more general anti EU sentiment, has, in part at least, been the result of the liberal/left tendency to dismiss anyone raising migration and/or overcrowding as somehow racist or a ‘fruitcake’, rather than calmly addressing some of the issues, whether real or perceived.

    Simply parroting the (true enough) notion that immigration is good for the economy isn’t sufficient – as the critical issue isn’t the economy overall, but the economic experience of those individuals that feel they are suffering, which is why the broad based arguement about migration being good for the economy is largely lost as a debating tool.

    Oddly enough, Nigel Farage has a perfectly logical take on this, in that in the 2015 GE he was quite open about being willing to sacrifice a bit of GDP growth as the price for reduced immigration. We can debate whether such a stance is sensible or desirable, but we can’t challenge it’s central logic. With this, and his view that anyone from anywhere in the world should have an equal chance to migrate to the UK within the context of agreed limits to the total number, he was pretty much the only person arguing a rational and reasoned policy on immigration – although I expect to be howled down by many for saying this.

    My frustration is that, partly by it’s association with less pleasant ideologies but also due to the typical liberal/left response, discussion of issues of population and immigration become mired in accusations and political sensitivities, which ultimately leads mainstream politics to vacate the field on what many voters see as one of the most important issues in the UK today.

    Unless we can find a way to understand the issues and discuss them rationally and without rancour, including within the context of the EU referendum, I am increasingly worried that the issue will simply become an unresolved battleground with a damaging outcome for everyone.

  28. Alec

    Thank you for an interesting summary of your position (and Farage’s).

    I don’t think anyone posting here would dispute that areas of the UK have a high population density. It’s the same in all developed countries – I’m currently in New York and the sheer pressure of people out and about on the streets is striking. And yet it’s a far nicer place to be than low-density LA. Cities like Hong Kong and Singapore make NYC look uncrowded.

    But you have tended to conflate (over)crowding and immigration as a single issue. The unbalanced development of the UK, both economically and in population distribution (linked, of course) is a problem in lots of ways, but it is not solely, or even to any great extent, the rest of EU immigration. Removing every EU migrant, and returning to the UK every citizen currently resident elsewhere in the UK, would not magically uncrowd the southeast.

    There are other, more effective policy solutions to overcrowding. Basically, you either mitigate its effects through increased infrastructure spending – more housing, schools and hospitals, better railways and roads, etc – or you shift development to the rest of the UK, where there is spare capacity. The BBC move to Salford is a good example, but there is a potential iceberg of similar moves of which that’s only the tip.

    In short, while it may suit the political agenda of some to encourage the idea that overcrowding in the south east is largely due to EU migration, it just ain’t so.

  29. Sorry for typos. Should read:

    the result of EU immigration. Removing every EU migrant, and returning to the UK every citizen currently resident elsewhere in the EU, would not magically uncrowd the southeast.

  30. As amusing as it is to watch armchair experts who (in the main) appear never to have been to or merely to have passed through Powys debate the county’s demography, geography and the state of its biodiversity, perhaps a little reality might help.

    As of the 2011 census, the population of Powys remains just below its peak level reached in the 1880s and 1890s.

    The period of population increase since 1965 that has brought the county near to this level again is almost a direct mirror to similar growth experienced in the 40 year period from 1845 in the last century.

    About a third of the population increase 10,000 (out of 30,000 overall) can be attributed to the rapid growth of the county’s largest settlement Newtown. An small existing market centre in the mid-North of the county it was selected to become a ‘new town’ and developed out from 1967 – primarily for English ‘migrants’ from the Midlands. So, it appears that development can happen without destroying the entire ecology.

    The second largest settlement, Ystradgynlais, was an early spark of the industrial revolution, with furnace iron working and coal mining taking place from the mid 18th century. After very rapid growth in the 19th century, population in this largely Welsh speaking area has fallen back and never reached its Edwardian peak again (being fully 15-20% less than 100 years ago).

    Beyond these settlements, we see some growth in the other towns, mainly at the expense of smaller villages and the gradual depopulation of the countryside proper (though practically the whole county would seem as such to an outsider’s view) as small holding and hill farming have become increasingly uneconomic.

    Furthermore the population is skewed elderly when compared to the remainder of the UK (though not in as pronounced a way as traditional retirement destinations), with fewer working age adults and school age children than you find across the country as a whole and significantly fewer than in suburban and urban areas.

    Taken as a whole these demographic characteristics put strains on local communities wholly unfamiliar in the current debate on international migration – primary schools are closing as rolls fall, secondary schools contract and lose their six forms and young people face daily ‘commutes’ of 20+ miles to complete their chosen ‘A’ levels. Likewise access to healthcare is complex, not just because of the obvious distances involved, but also as a result of severe difficulties recruiting clinicians to work in rural communities.

  31. Lots of people of here today using Powys to support their arguments on population density, migration, ‘destruction of the countryside’, the EU and everything else.

    Sadly, very few feel the need to reference an actual place, its geography, demography or concrete facts about it.

    It seems as though the standard of conversation here is starting to mirror that on the EU campaign itself – a fact free zone.

    Have written a long detailed post on Powys, and why it is much more complex than the ‘battery re-charging idyll’ that some armchair experts would have us believe. At some point, it may, or may not come out of moderation.

    The simple point is: much of the countryside has been in poorly managed decline for a very long time, with deleterious effects for those who live there. Some increase in population and economic activity in these areas, far from harming them, could well be the very thing that saves them.

    Also to claim that such places have been immune from migration is untrue. With more than 25% of the population of Wales being born in one of the other home nations of the UK (a proportion matched in Powys), it’s plain that there has been a substantial movement of people into these communities over the last 60 years.

  32. Bill
    “If Hofer goes on to win for the Freedom Party it’ll be the first far-right President in Europe since the 2nd World War.”

    Franco? Greek Colonels?

  33. @Somerjohn

    Surely the answer to that depends upon the relative proportions of EU immigrants who have settled to the South-East and UK emigrants who have left from it?

  34. A constant theme raised in recent EU threads here is that it is the ‘working classes’ who suffer disproportionately as a result of free movement of people within Europe.

    It’s also becoming a constant refrain of the Brexit campaign.

    I wonder if anyone can actually provide any statistical evidence that this is the case?

    Also, do the assertions that the ‘middle classes’ are protected from any negative consequences of continued EU membership actually hold up to examination?

    For example, competition for housing is often given as an example of where the ‘working classes’ are exceptionally disadvantaged.

    However in reality, at the social or affordable end of the housing market, access for EU migrants is extremely limited by nature of their economic circumstances – with a strong tendency towards being in employment and having good health, these are people who would not remotely qualify for affordable rented housing. As such the ‘indigenous’ UK population and small numbers of vulnerable migrants from non-EU sources have a marked advantage.

    The private rented market is different, here we can see that immigration – or at least demand (migration within the UK must also be taken into account, as must supply failures) has had had an impact in certain areas.

    However, work done by Reeds Rains and the ONS’ own figures show that the largest increases in rental costs have been in those areas with the lowest concentrations of ‘working class’ (using the traditional social class indicators) inhabitants. Whilst the rises have been least, or non existent in the areas with the highest proportion of ‘working class’ inhabitants.

    It’s also important to note that private renting is not a fundamentally ‘working class’ activity (as it was up to the 1960s). The areas with the highest concentration of private rented accommodation in the UK are Westminster, The City of London, and Kensington and Chelsea.

    The skew towards an effect on the middle classes is even more pronounced in the case of home ownership. First of all it’s necessary to take into account the fact that home ownership remains substantially more widespread amongst the middle classes (ABC1) than the other groups.

    House price inflation can then be seen correlate almost directly with those parts of the country where the highest proportion of population are born overseas. In turn, London (and the south East to an extent) dwarf all other parts of the UK both for the number of foreign born migrants as proportion of population and house price inflation.

    However this throws up some anomalies, as SOAs in Kensington, Chelsea, Hampstead, Belsize Park, Fulham, Islington, St John’s Wood and Westminster easily give Hackey and Tower Hamlets a run for their money in terms of the highest numbers of new arrivals.

    As such it’s possible to see that house price inflation has affected ‘upper’ and ‘middle’ class areas equally if not more markedly than working class areas. Given that it was always the middle classes who were going to be buying these homes it is they who now find themselves increasingly in competition for a scarce resource.

    This is born out both by the spiralling entry level to ‘affordable home ownership’ – government schemes regularly stipulate that couples in London must earn £80.000 + to qualify for assistance to buy – and the sharp tailing off in graduates living in the city into their early 40s.

    Of course, there may be an element of asset transfer between generations that can offset these costs, however, work by the Resolution Foundation suggests that the sums involved means that ‘the bank of mum and dad’ is increasingly unable to assist the bulk of young buyers sufficiently to help them into the market – hence the reversals in home ownership levels.

    Given all the above, it seems that on housing security it is the young, middle classes, those most likely to be formally educated, who have seen the greatest downward change in their circumstances. The ‘working classes’ are worse off in comparison, but it was previously the case.

    So why do these young people seem most resistant to the Brexit message and most in favour of continuing EU membership?

  35. @”The simple point is: much of the countryside has been in poorly managed decline for a very long time, with deleterious effects for those who live there. Some increase in population and economic activity in these areas, far from harming them, could well be the very thing that saves them.”

    I love these armchair experts who pronounce upon the state of the “countryside” in terms of “people” , without ever mentioning the thousands of other species which live there, or the habitats on which they rely-or indeed their value to human kind.

    Thankfully there are plenty of real experts, in the County Wildlife Trusts, RSPB, NT, Woodland Trust, and the Local Authority who understand the importance of protecting & enhancing Local Biodiversity , in harmony with sympathetic & sustainable local housing & employment.

    These guardians still have to cope with the system which has reduced farmland birds diversity by 50% since 1980 ( 40% of EU land area is in agricultural use). -even as the bureaucrats falteringly attempt to correct this devastation :-

    http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/new-eu-reforms-fail-european-wildlife

    But they do cope with it, and they do protect,-and do their best in the face of our demand for cheap food & more and more housing.

  36. Assiduosity
    Could it be because they have been taught to believe that discomfort with mass immigration into this country is somehow racist?

  37. @ ASSIDUOSITY

    In the Austrian presidential election, according to the exit polls, the vast majority of the working classes (they define the working class differently, as they exclude the “improductive” employees such as office workers from it) voted for the fascists, while the vast majority of the degree holders voted for the independent (mind, the villages and towns, oldies and youngsters split in the same way).

    ORF interprets the working class vote for the fascists as protest votes rather than agreement with them (as back in the early 2000s, when their waking up required that the great friend of the Dalai Lama, Helder, attempted to take away most of their rights.

  38. ALEC:
    It’s by no means more logical to treat EU and non-EU migration the same. To say so betrays a partial understanding of the logic of the foundation of the EU, certainly at its inception, but continuing today: the partial integration of the nation states of Europe as a barrier to war within Europe.

    Say what you like about Cameron and his speech of a couple of weeks ago, this peace-bringing aim has always been one of the cornerstones of Europe.

    The notion that we can have a single market and expect that to do the job seems, to me, incomplete. It also seems rather unfair on the worker. Why should borders be more onerous for workers than for corporations?

    It would be remiss of anyone to neglect all this in analysing immigration and trade within and into Europe.

  39. Re: Austrian Presidential Election

    far Right Defeated (just) Former Green Party Leader wins

    50.3% to 49.7%.
    Van der Bellen – 2,254,484 Hofer – 2,223,458, margin 31,026 votes

  40. I wonder how close the “referendum” will be in the UK as there were only 31,206 votes separating the two candidates?

    I also like this quote from a campaign speech of Van der Bellen:

    “I’ve experienced how Austria rose from the ruins of World War Two, caused by the madness of nationalism”

    So in Austria a strongly pro-European Union candidate, who supports Merkel’s open border policy for refugees and asylum seekers narrowly wins in a 72.7% turnout on the strength of 6.4 million postal votes.

    More interestingly the last poll I saw had the FPO, Hofer leading Van der Bellen 53% to 47%.

    Are the polls in the UK overestimating the strength of the “Leave” vote, as they did the strength of the FPO in Austria?

    And it is also interesting that in Austria the traditional centre left and centre right candidates for the Presidency could only garner 22% support in the first round of voting, and that in the July 2nd Australian election anywhere from 23% to 30.5% of voters are planning to cast their first preference for a non-Labour or non-Liberal/National candidate.

  41. @Somerjohn – “But you have tended to conflate (over)crowding and immigration as a single issue. ”

    I don’t believe I did. I said;

    “My interest in this [population density in parts of England] is primarily how this affects public perceptions of immigration, and by extension, the vote on June 23rd.”

    I also said;

    “My personal belief is that the rise of UKIP, and more general anti EU sentiment, has, in part at least, been the result of the liberal/left tendency to dismiss anyone raising migration and/or overcrowding as somehow racist or a ‘fruitcake’, rather than calmly addressing some of the issues, whether real or perceived.”

    Note the and/or here.

    Others may think differently, but I would argue that you have made an assumption that I have conflated overcrowding and immigration, whereas I felt I was cautious to ensure the two are separate, but linked issues.

  42. Re overcrowding/migration

    I recall in the mid to late 1980s, living in my parents Council flat in central London. This was years before the accession of E European countries to the EU. Indeed, Spain had only recently joined. However, even at that time demand far exceeded supply of Council accommodation and there was a large waiting list. This wasn’t caused by migration. It was caused by Right To Buy. Or more specifically, the Government preventing Council’s reinvesting the proceeds of RTB into the purchase of new housing.

    Before we look at immigration as the source of housing pressures in UK cities, we need to first look at how these problems first arose.

  43. Re the Austrian President –

    “Though theoretically entrusted with great power by the Constitution of Austria, in practice the President acts, for the most part, merely as a ceremonial figurehead.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Austria

    What would matter more are the 2018 elections for the National Council.

  44. @Alun009 – “It’s by no means more logical to treat EU and non-EU migration the same. To say so betrays a partial understanding of the logic of the foundation of the EU, certainly at its inception, but continuing today….”

    Firstly, I understand your point re logic, but I would counter that if we assume a state would prefer to allow entry to the best and brightest, allowing entry to anyone from one group of countries, regardless of qualification or ability, and without the ability to decline entry, isn’t very logical.

    I’m well aware of the historical background to the setting up of the EC/EEC/EU, and indeed to more recent events regarding the fall of the Iron Curtain and the psychological effect this has had, leading many people in eastern Europe to desire open borders. There is a case for this in terms of integration, no doubt, and this needs to be balanced against the potential risks.

    A single market doesn’t require the free movement of people. This is why we are negotiating WTO based global trade rules, without feeling the need to include in these settlements agreements to remove or reduce barriers to immigration.

    You said – “The notion that we can have a single market and expect that to do the job [bring peace] seems, to me, incomplete. It also seems rather unfair on the worker. Why should borders be more onerous for workers than for corporations?”

    I don’t believe that the free movement of people has had very much to do with maintaining peace in the EU, if I’m being honest. Trade, improving economies, greater international cooperation and NATO are far more significant.

    You also make a valid point about corporations and workers. Did you read the comment I posted recently on the 2008 ECJ judgement against Swedish unions that upheld the right of corporations to import workers on terms and conditions below the nationally recognised agreements in member states, and prevented unions from demonstrating against them as this represented a ‘restriction on association’?

    I guess you didn’t, as it is a really quite shocking judgement. An EU government can agree minimum conditions with it’s own unions, and when a foreign firm wins a contract (and again, contracts must be able to be served by anyone throughout the EU) it can bring in it’s own foreign workforce and undercut the agreed standards in the host country. This is legal in the EU, and trying to disrupt this via normal union demonstration is not. Tell me that isn’t making life easy for corporations while keeping a straight face.

    There are many, many things about the EU that it’s supporters do not know or understand.

  45. @ Colin

    Nice to see a bit of passion.

    As I mentioned, I’ve a very long and detailed post about Powys in moderation, it may or may not come out.

    I absolutely appreciate the need for people, other species and habitats to coexist in harmony.

    However, Powys is largely a managed landscape – all the bodies you mention want it to remain in some state of human management – none advocate returning it to an unmanaged ‘natural’ state. As such a viable and liveable existence for the human population has to be part of the mix.

    Really I don’t think our positions are that different:

    “Some increase in population and economic activity in these areas, far from harming them, could well be the very thing that saves them.”

    “…. the importance of protecting & enhancing Local Biodiversity , in harmony with sympathetic & sustainable local housing & employment.”

    It has to be seen in the context of a much more economically and environmentally diverse county that many here seem to appreciate. My issue is – and continues to be with the ‘fact free’ naming of a place and using it as an example of something it is not.

  46. @PeteB

    “Could it be because they have been taught to believe that discomfort with mass immigration into this country is somehow racist?”

    Possibly. Though those same ‘lessons’ have been offered to all. Are you suggesting the working classes are too stupid to have learnt them?

  47. @Alec

    We can agree or disagree with the Laval judgement. However, the European project is a balance between different, sometimes conflicting interests. There is nothing stopping the European Council from passing a minimum harmonisation directive on workers pay/conitions which would evectively prevent a Laval situation. Collective bargaining is not illegal in EU law. Nor is Union protest or demonstrations. Quite the reverse in fact. In most EU countries corporations are far less protected, and workers far better protected than here in the UK.

    However, everyone must act within the rule of law, otherwise the who house of cards comes crashing down.

1 2 3 4 5 6