Bolitics The New Condem Government

[chrisp65]

battling demons?

 

The Braintree MP, who is married with five children, also said he would stand down at the next election as the Sun on Sunday published fresh allegations.

He wrote in the Mail on Sunday he had been "battling demons - and losing to them. I craved adrenaline and risk."

He resigned as a minister last month after sending risque pictures to a reporter he thought was a young woman.

That story was published in the Sunday Mirror.

In the latest claims, the Sun on Sunday said it had discovered that Mr Newmark had sent "X-rated" pictures of himself to a second person.

The newspaper claimed the 56-year-old sent explicit pictures to a "young mum".

 

new allegations that don't really add or subtract from whether Newmark was competent to be an MP, more the case that it probably gets Mirror off the hook as to whether he was unfairly set up

[HanoiVillan]

 

 

...ensures a downward pressure on wages.

So goes the narrative of UKIP (and others).

The analysis (as per Portes, for example) may not quite support this (at least to the extent that the anti-immigration line takes and in the long run rather than short run).

I think you're on firmer ground with the service provision angle.

 

 

The trouble is that Jonathan Portes was part of the team which advised on Labour's immigration policy; his genius was dispensed with in 2008.

 

He claims that immigrants actually raise wages but doesn't bother to explain how or for whom. 

 

I can't think of another commodity where an increase in supply increased the price.

 

I can't help but think that his opinions are tainted by his political alignment.

 

 

Let Me Google That Fot You. Of course the former Chief Economist of the Cabinet Office explains his reasoning in the academic papers he writes on the subject! (and by the way, he doesn't claim that the evidence shows immigrants raise wages, merely that any negative effects are negligible in the writing I've seen of his). 

[villaajax]

Not seen it posted here yet. LBC interviewer takes on an enthusiastic UKIP voter

 

"What are UKIP for?" "[long pause]... loads of things" "Go on then" "..."

Edited October 12, 2014 by villaajax

[MakemineVanilla]

Let Me Google That For You. Of course the former Chief Economist of the Cabinet Office explains his reasoning in the academic papers he writes on the subject! (and by the way, he doesn't claim that the evidence shows immigrants raise wages, merely that any negative effects are negligible in the writing I've seen of his).

 

I am just sceptical when it comes to the statements of economists who become political.

 

The Huffington Post describe Portes as a 'top' economist and his new job is working for an institute which specialises in macroeconomic forecasts.

 

He certainly failed to forecast the economic disaster which occurred on his watch. 

 

Furthermore, if Lefties demand that I am sceptical when I listen to Milton Friedman (another top economist) telling me how, trade unions, the minimum wage and equal pay for women are bad things, then surely I should not suspend my scepticism just because another top economist, happens to have advised a Labour government.

 

So I remain sceptical.

[snowychap]

Furthermore, if Lefties demand that I am sceptical when I listen to Milton Friedman (another top economist) telling me how, trade unions, the minimum wage and equal pay for women are bad things, then surely I should not suspend my scepticism just because another top economist, happens to have advised a Labour government.

No, you shouldn't suspend your skepticism when it comes to the remarks of anybody.

Your previous post was dismissive (on rather flimsy grounds - see above) rather than skeptical.

I used Portes because he has been one of the more vocal people in trying to address the kinds of comments that we saw earlier in the thread (mainly when they are put forward by politicians).

...his new job is working for an institute which specialises in macroeconomic forecasts.

Whilst NIESR produce macroeconomic forecasts and models (and, as their wiki page and their about us page suggest, one of their 'most important' outputs is their quarterly forecast), I think that's an intentionally skewed representation of what they do (in order to slip in your comment below).

He certainly failed to forecast the economic disaster which occurred on his watch.

Did he not become NIESR's director in Feb 2011?

I don't quite get the 'occurred on his watch' bit.

I do agree that we should take economic forecasts with many pinches of salt but I think economists would mostly say the same.

I'm not here to defend Portes, his reputation and his economic abilities (I think if you want to engage him in that then he's probably in a better position than anyone else): this is to criticize the way in which you've sought to address the skepticism (alluding to the summarized conclusions from some actual analysis) that I put forward about the claim made about a (negative) impact of immigration on wages.

Frankly, your comments have all been a bit Jesse Norman, i.e. taking what would be a reasonable stance of presuming that someone's comments/opinion/analysis may be clouded by their political views, at least subconsciously, and filtering them accordingly, and running with that to the point of dismissing that person's comments/opinion/analysis because of this supposed political 'taint' - especially when the comments/opinions/analysis stand in contradistinction to one's own.

Edited October 13, 2014 by snowychap

[MakemineVanilla]

I have no personal animus against Portes but looking at his career, he does seem to have been fast-tracked into the political elite, which makes him a bit suspect, for me.

 

An Oxford graduate, with a famous father, who got a job in HM Treasury aged 21, and then was nicely positioned and the right age to be part of the Cabinet Office team when New Labour got into power.  

 

Then when they left office he was handed a sinecure in some left-thinking economic institution and starts writing columns for The Guardian attacking the Tories.

 

So I would list him amongst the liberal elite who have thrived through privilege and nepotism.

 

Something he shares with his Guardian colleague George Monbiot.

 

I don't accuse him of anything nefarious, I just think he is just doing his job, but I would never consider him a neutral source.

Edited October 13, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[HanoiVillan]

Of course he's not a 'neutral source', he doesn't even pretend to be. He is, however, an expert, and he mostly assuredly does 'show his reasoning'. It's just not terribly impressive to say 'a bit suspect', 'thrived through privilege and nepotism' etc without having any particular point to make. They're just ad hominems. 

Edited October 13, 2014 by HanoiVillan

[snowychap]

...but I would never consider him a neutral source.

What has that got to do with the price of a kettle of fish?

Your checklist (Oxbridge, 'privilege' and so on) of characteristics for dismissing as unsatisfactory certain 'sources' would be amusing if it were satirical but otherwise comes across as deeply (and sadly) prejudiced.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

...but I would never consider him a neutral source.

What has that got to do with the price of a kettle of fish?

Your checklist (Oxbridge, 'privilege' and so on) of characteristics for dismissing as unsatisfactory certain 'sources' would be amusing if it were satirical but otherwise comes across as deeply (and sadly) prejudiced.

 

 

I originally dismissed his opinions on the affect of immigration because I thought his closeness to Labour made him less than neutral.

 

You seemed to disagree.

 

I just provided a very sketchy CV, which included the fact that he is a Guardian columnist, who regularly attacks the Tories, which I think reveals his political position.

 

What I can't understand is why Lefties freak out when evidence is produced that the political system is both run by and commented on, by the progeny of the political establishment.

 

There is supposed to be a debate going on about the exclusion of clever working-class people from the top jobs, but every time an instance of privilege and nepotism is mentioned, the debate gets shut down.

[colhint]

Is this the same immigration policy that Herr Farrago was saying in January would be a 5 year blanket ban on immigration? Doesn't sound the same to me. How should we know what is current UKIP policy? It seems to change by the pint

 

Couldn't you also say that about the Labour policy on Immigration. Hearing Harriet yesterday I'm sure she said Labour will be announcing tough new immigration policies in the next few weeks,  It seems to me that one poor poll, or bad by election and they will change their opinion.

[villaajax]

 

Is this the same immigration policy that Herr Farrago was saying in January would be a 5 year blanket ban on immigration? Doesn't sound the same to me. How should we know what is current UKIP policy? It seems to change by the pint

 

Couldn't you also say that about the Labour policy on Immigration. Hearing Harriet yesterday I'm sure she said Labour will be announcing tough new immigration policies in the next few weeks,  It seems to me that one poor poll, or bad by election and they will change their opinion.

 

 

They've been talking about changing their policies on immigration for the past few years now to be fair.

[blandy]

There is supposed to be a debate going on about the exclusion of clever working-class people from the top jobs, but every time an instance of privilege and nepotism is mentioned, the debate gets shut down.

 

I think it's two things not one.

The debate is or should be about putting capable and competent and widely experienced people from all backgrounds into positions.

It isn't, or shouldn't be, about either including or excluding people based not on ability, but on social background.

 

Discounting someone's views or competence because they are priveliged (or not) is a different angle.

If someone is genuinely an expert, despite their background, or path to a position is different to discounting someone who is not an expert and is only there because they fit a demographic.

 

As you imply there are politicians and civil servants who are basically bumbling morons who should be nowhere near the decision making process, or advising process. There are people well suited to those roles who never get the chance under the current system.

 

Two different points entirely, and it's probably easy and appealing to make assertions about people from Cameron down based only on their upbringing or whatever.  George Obsorne's qualifications for being chancellor are 'O' level maths and being Cameron's buddy. He has no economic training or qualifications or expertise, and it shows.

Like Michael Gove was he is advised by a coterie of similarly politically inclined 'tards and bases his policies on his instinct and political aims, and world view rather than using the best possible information and advice.

SImilar traits are visible in the Gov'ts approach to scientific advice. If it doesn't fit their view, be it on badgers, global warming, the NHS or whatever, they just go with their prejudices and ingnorance over expertise.

[bickster]

Is this the same immigration policy that Herr Farrago was saying in January would be a 5 year blanket ban on immigration? Doesn't sound the same to me. How should we know what is current UKIP policy? It seems to change by the pint

 

Couldn't you also say that about the Labour policy on Immigration. Hearing Harriet yesterday I'm sure she said Labour will be announcing tough new immigration policies in the next few weeks,  It seems to me that one poor poll, or bad by election and they will change their opinion.

And why oh why oh why would I give a crap about Labour's immigration policy, not only that but what the flying row of ducks does it have to do with my point. Why does every point about a right wing party have to be challenged with but Labour? Labour are a right wing party, have been for 20 years, I don't support them, cop on to this point and argue a point with a more mature argument or don't bother

[snowychap]

There is supposed to be a debate going on about the exclusion of clever working-class people from the top jobs, but every time an instance of privilege and nepotism is mentioned, the debate gets shut down.

If that's in response to what I've written then I don't know what on earth you are gabbering on about.

Having your prejudice pointed out as unhelpful (to be charitable) is not the same as 'shutting down a debate about the exclusion of clever working-class people from the top jobs'. Your suggestion would appear to me to be a (not so) subtle way at trying to move even further away from the original point at hand (on whether the empirical data and analysis of it supports the assertion about an [adverse] effect of immigration on wages to the extent that those who repeat the mantra seek to imply).

Debate away about the exclusion of clever 'working-class' people (I'd like to see your checklist for who qualifies); debate away about neutrality and whether or not it is possible to exclude bias from analysis/opinion (I don't think it is); debate away about the analysis of the effect(s) upon wages of immigration (and conclusions drawn) by looking at the data, critiquing the methodology or pointing out problems you have in how conclusions have been arrived at.

If you want to do any/all of the above then it may be worth trying to find the time to engage; if you'd rather try and conflate the multifarious strands of different discussions and squeeze in as many uses of the words and phrases 'lefties', 'liberal elites', 'privilege' and so on that you can manage then count me out as there's no time to engage before you've shifted the playing field in the next post.

Edited October 13, 2014 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

 

 

...but I would never consider him a neutral source.

What has that got to do with the price of a kettle of fish?

Your checklist (Oxbridge, 'privilege' and so on) of characteristics for dismissing as unsatisfactory certain 'sources' would be amusing if it were satirical but otherwise comes across as deeply (and sadly) prejudiced.

 

 

I originally dismissed his opinions on the affect of immigration because I thought his closeness to Labour made him less than neutral.

 

You seemed to disagree.

 

I just provided a very sketchy CV, which included the fact that he is a Guardian columnist, who regularly attacks the Tories, which I think reveals his political position.

 

What I can't understand is why Lefties freak out when evidence is produced that the political system is both run by and commented on, by the progeny of the political establishment.

 

There is supposed to be a debate going on about the exclusion of clever working-class people from the top jobs, but every time an instance of privilege and nepotism is mentioned, the debate gets shut down.

 

 

I'm struggling to follow the goalposts. What does his background have to do with whether he's an expert or not in immigration? And do you actually have any substantive argument against anything he has written, except pointing out that he has opinions (no way, an academic with political opinions! wonders never cease etc) and that his Dad was successful? 

 

For the record - not that it has any real relevance to the discussion which was about immigration - yes, having a wealthy family is too much of an advantage in this country, no, just because someone comes from a wealthy family doesn't mean they can't be intelligent, academic or worth reading. 

[colhint]

 

 

Is this the same immigration policy that Herr Farrago was saying in January would be a 5 year blanket ban on immigration? Doesn't sound the same to me. How should we know what is current UKIP policy? It seems to change by the pint

 

Couldn't you also say that about the Labour policy on Immigration. Hearing Harriet yesterday I'm sure she said Labour will be announcing tough new immigration policies in the next few weeks,  It seems to me that one poor poll, or bad by election and they will change their opinion.

 

And why oh why oh why would I give a crap about Labour's immigration policy, not only that but what the flying row of ducks does it have to do with my point. Why does every point about a right wing party have to be challenged with but Labour? Labour are a right wing party, have been for 20 years, I don't support them, cop on to this point and argue a point with a more mature argument or don't bother

 

 

I'm sorry if I offended you. The point I was trying to put across was It seems a little one sided just to have a go at one Party without comparing it to the others. It seems a little pointless to say UKIP are one thing and imagining something different elsewhere in the political spectrum

[MakemineVanilla]

 

There is supposed to be a debate going on about the exclusion of clever working-class people from the top jobs, but every time an instance of privilege and nepotism is mentioned, the debate gets shut down.

If that's in response to what I've written then I don't know what on earth you are gabbering on about.

Having your prejudice pointed out as unhelpful (to be charitable) is not the same as 'shutting down a debate about the exclusion of clever working-class people from the top jobs'. Your suggestion would appear to me to be a (not so) subtle way at trying to move even further away from the original point at hand (on whether the empirical data and analysis of it supports the assertion about an [adverse] effect of immigration on wages to the extent that those who repeat the mantra seek to imply).

Debate away about the exclusion of clever 'working-class' people (I'd like to see your checklist for who qualifies); debate away about neutrality and whether or not it is possible to exclude bias from analysis/opinion (I don't think it is); debate away about the analysis of the effect(s) upon wages of immigration (and conclusions drawn) by looking at the data, critiquing the methodology or pointing out problems you have in how conclusions have been arrived at.

If you want to do any/all of the above then it may be worth trying to find the time to engage; if you'd rather try and conflate the multifarious strands of different discussions and squeeze in as many uses of the words and phrases 'lefties', 'liberal elites', 'privilege' and so on that you can manage then count me out as there's no time to engage before you've shifted the playing field in the next post.

 

 

I don't think this could be described as a debate.

 

I shall of course ask my local economics professor how the affects of immigration can be identified and isolated from the multiple economic factors which contribute to the data.

 

As for problems with social mobility in the UK, I do not have to provide my own criteria or check-list for you to dispute, they are provided by the various studies which are regularly published.

 

The Guardian published a report on one as recently as August, which led with the headline: 

 

Closed shop at the top in deeply elitist Britain, says study

 

There has to be an irony in the Guardian publishing the article because as I annoyingly keep pointing out, they are guilty of employing the well-connected themselves, rather more often than is quite decent.

[snowychap]

I don't think this could be described as a debate.

That's self-evident. I'm surprised that you introduced the word in to your diatribes.

As for problems with social mobility in the UK, I do not have to provide my own criteria or check-list for you to dispute, they are provided by the various studies which are regularly published.

You've produced your own checklist and criteria as to valid sources so I'm suddenly surprised that you'd accede to the criteria of others (quite a few of whom may be Oxbridge-educated, perhaps with political opinions, in danger of having been employed by the 'political elite' and with parentage that would have you discounting their ability from the start - I'm sure you have more).

Anyway, as above: that's me done with this.

Edited October 13, 2014 by snowychap

[Awol]

On a purely anecdotal and therefore invalid (cos I ain't got a link) basis, loads of mates in building and other skilled trades are adamant that their wages/rates have gone down since 2005 because of cheaper competition from overseas.

I'm not sure they'd have much time for the dry opinions of economists, they just know what they know.

[bickster]

On a purely anecdotal and therefore invalid (cos I ain't got a link) basis, loads of mates in building and other skilled trades are adamant that their wages/rates have gone down since 2005 because of cheaper competition from overseas.

I'm not sure they'd have much time for the dry opinions of economists, they just know what they know.

On a purely anecdotal basis, so have everyone else's wages, not had a raise in five years now and its got nothing to do with immigration. Its a cheap shot to blame cheap foreign labour for lower wages in the building game, most of the eastern european labour in that market went back home years ago