The Optical Illusion of Net Ratings

 The Optical Illusion of Net Ratings

"The Absurdity"

We asked a hundred people -  "Who do you trust to buy a round for their friends in the pub, Boris Johnson or Sir Keir Starmer?"  42 said Boris, 24 Sir Keir, & the rest didn't know. They were asked who they thought would best organise a fun night out;. 42 said Boris, & 20 Sir Keir. In June 2020, another survey asked if the respondents thought either of the two "had personality" - Boris won by 34 points,  64 to 30. When asked again in September Boris increased his lead to 42, (67-25). The most recent Opinium poll asked whether the respondents found Boris or Sir Keir likeable - given that people would rather go for a night out with Boris, the choice they think has bags more personality of the two, it's not much of a surprise that he "got more likes" 43-38. So it would seem uncontroversial to say that Boris is the more likeable of the two men who want to be PM after the next GE. Unless...

Unless, instead of basing the results on who people actually like, you decided to ask who they disliked as well, and subtracted one from the other. Using this method, Sir Keir suddenly becomes more likeable than the more liked Boris,  braver than the man more people consider brave of the two, and a stronger leader than the leader he trails in terms of people's judgement of who is strong. (Opinium March 2020)

Collectively these absurdities are one example why the use of net ratings rather than gross positives is a  redder herring than a herring who just won first prize in a "Reddest Herring of the Year" competition. 

"The Don't Know/Don't Care's"

The pandemic has made the last twelve months a strange old time in politics. Starmer took over the Labour Party leadership at the start of it, and his, and his party's, popularity has ebbed and flowed in line with the level of despair in the country - after a while of  the government locking us in our houses whilst the news told us thousands were dying each day, Sir Keir & Labour polled well; when a Covid vaccine was deployed and the government announced a plan to let us live more normally in the near future, those ratings nosedived. What it gave him though, was the best opportunity a LotO has ever had to endear himself to the general public. Politics dominated the media, Sir Keir was  given prime time slots to respond to the Prime Minister's Covid plans, the Conservatives refused to appear on ITV's breakfast show, leaving the door wide open for the opposition when all there was to do was watch tv and look at the internet; an unprecedented chance to woo the people he needs to get the keys to No10. Despite all this free publicity, in the latest Opinium Leadership Ratings, 37% of respondents didn't have  a view on him one way or the other. This should depress Labour supporters, but the optical illusion of net ratings turns indifference into a positive, and makes the blanket comforting, not wet.  It means  Boris leads by just two point in terms of net satisfaction (45-38 playing Sir Keir's 34-29) - all to play for, "especially after he's just had the vaccine bounce!" cry Starmer's cheerleaders. 

Well, no.

The smoke and mirrors of Net Ratings make this seems a close race, and Sir Keir still has 38% of the public to win over! But remember that only 70% of those with the vote use it, and the mist clears - the divisiveness of Boris Johnson is an asset, the blandness of Sir Keir a drag. Divide the Gross Positives by 70 and Boris is 15 points clear - the Don't Know's/Don't Care's don't vote; you want as few of them as possible.

"The Voting System"

In elections, only positive votes count - the strength of feeling against you is irrelevant so long as you get more votes than your competition, and so Voting Intention polls only ask respondents who they will vote for, not who they won't... because the second question doesn't matter. Lets imagine such a poll were taken, the question asked "Would you consider voting for the following party; Yes, No or Don't Know" and the results were as follows

             Yes No DK Net

Con          30 70   0  -40

Lab         23 52 25 -29

LD     8 45 47 -37

SNP     3 38 59 -35

Green 2 40 58 -38

Brexit 1 48 51 -47

Only The Brexit Party are less popular than the Conservatives in net terms.

But of course, we have forgotten that 30% of voters, won't vote!So divide the positive number for each party by 70 (Possible voters minus stay at homes) and the result of an Election would be

Con 43%

Lab 33 %

LD 11%

SNP 4%

Green 3%

Brexit 1%

Of course there is a bit more to it than this. There is overlap -some people like Boris and Keir, some dislike both -some don't knows do vote. Better staticians than I will find flaws, and I am happy to listen to their corrections; this is a work in progress. But in the main, a system that rewards positive indicators, reflecting the electoral system, must be better than one that manages to find that people who are considered braver, stronger and more likeable, trail their less brave less strong, less likeable rivals 

*After I published this article, I got some feedback from a political betting website contributor pointing that YouGov were actively sifting out the politically over engaged from their sample. As it turned out, Labour outperformed expectations at the 2017 GE, and YouGov's seat model, much mocked in the media, was spectacularly accurate.

The Problem with Opinion Polls?-Polls?-Polls?-Polls?-Polls?...


In the lead up to last year’s EU referendum something very significant, and very sad, happened; Leave were flying in the opinion polls and as short in the betting as they had been all campaign, then, on June 16th, Labour MP and Remain supporter Jo Cox was murdered by a man who would almost certainly have been a leaver. The political analysts agreed it was a blow for the anti EU movement, when polling resumed there was a marked shift towards Remain, and Leave drifted from 2.4 to 15 on the betting exchanges. A week after Cox's death, Leave won 52/48; there had been no shift to Remain.

Before GE 2015 the polls had the Conservatives and Labour vying for the lead. The narrative amongst betting experts was that No Overall Majority was "free money", even at prohibitive odds, and the media dismissed talk of either party winning a majority, busying themselves with the permutations of the incoming coalition. At 10pm on election night, the exit poll had the Conservatives as the largest party by some margin, and early next morning it was confirmed that David Cameron's Blues had racked up 331 seats, commanding a majority in the House. The coalition calculations were rendered redundant, the NOM money was lost. Ed Miliband never had a hope.

The current opinion polls show Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party cutting Theresa May's Tories lead to shreds since her manifesto was launched on May 18th. At the start of the month the Conservatives had three leads of 20% or more; since the manifesto was unveiled, and its controversial social care policy revealed, there have been several in single figures. The talking heads have revised their predictions of a three figure majority downwards, the Corbynista's (and Blairites) are smelling blood. So it seems obvious - the voters have read what the Conservatives have to offer, and don't like what they see... this could be close!! Diane Abbott could be Home Secretary!!!

 If the polls called it incorrectly in the last two national elections, why should we take seriously what they tell us now? Why did they indicate one thing, pretty strongly, only for the public to say something different? I believe it’s because they are not recording the opinion of the public as a whole but extrapolating the opinion of the type who like answering opinion polls - the politically engaged. The resultant swings make good copy for the hacks, and fuel suppertime conversations of the chattering classes... but are they all nonsense?

"It's a concerning trend that polls now often driving the news - and becoming political events in themselves. Same true in 2015." - @Ed Balls 30.05.17

The politically engaged are a tiny, but enthusiastic, percentage of the population. The difficulty for opinion pollsters is that they are not representative of the public. They follow politicians and political journalists on twitter, they post about politics on forums, they watch Newsnight and the Daily Politics, digest the info and answer polls. They like to show off their understanding and want everyone/anyone to know that A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT HAS GONE INTO THIS. As most men in the pub discuss football, they are online discussing politics. While the man in the pub will generally quite bluntly say who he (always) votes for when asked, the politically engaged find such partisan loyalty an affront to critical thinking - being seen to be "undecided" is a badge of honour, it shows they are a serious person. They admire intellectual reasoning and put a high price on their vote, so when the chance comes to answer questions on how they think and why, it's like giving someone a big line of cocaine and asking them to talk about themselves. Political obsessives are the material of opinion polls, but not the fabric of the nation. It could be that in showing off about doing their homework, giving the "clever" answer rather than what they actually intend to do, they are making the polls less accurate.

An example of the politically engaged's answers being beneficial was YouGov's polling for the Labour leadership contests, and I feel this backs up my theory... the material of the polls WERE the voters in those elections, and the polling was very accurate as a result. But in General Elections and referendums, each vote carries the same weight regardless of how invested the voter is. So we have swingy polls, heightened media interest in the polls, frenzied analysis of the media interest and the polls.. when the result was the same all along - The opinion polls, coverage of opinion polls, and reaction to coverage of opinion polls feed off each other to create an unrepresentative echo chamber.  

How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub.

Is EastEnders more racist than Midsomer Murders?

Why Aren't People Calling For The Producers of EastEnders To Be Sacked?

A few years ago, Brian True-May was suspended from his job. True-May was the producer of ITV drama "Midsomer Murders", a detective show set in rural England, and his crime was to admit that he didn't use black or Asian people in the series as 'it wouldn't be an English village with them"

The race equality thinktank the Runnymede Trust said True-May's comments were out of date and no longer reflected English society.

"Clearly, as a fictional work, the producers of Midsomer Murders are entitled to their flights of fancy, but to claim that the English village is purely white is no longer true and not a fair reflection of our society, particularly to this show's large international audience," said the trust's director Rob Berkeley. "It is not a major surprise that ethnic minority people choose not to watch a show that excludes them."

Well, maybe...

The show is set in the fictional county of Midsomer, so gathering demographic data isn't easy... but it is filmed in South Oxfordshire, where the ethnic breakdown is

95% White British
1.7% Asian
1% Black
1% Chinese
1.3% Other

There are, on average, 25 cast members in each episode, so I guess on that basis there should be one non White British character in each broadcast, occasionally there should be two, sometimes none.

But in the main, True-May wasn't really speaking out of turn. If you went for a day out in the English Countryside and didn't see any BAME's, I don't think it would register as a massive shock.

However, enough people got their knickers in a twist to see him suspended, and have to apologise before being reinstated, only to leave the show a year or so later.

But there is an equally popular show on British TV that is vastly less representative of the demographic it purports to represent, yet escapes questioning let alone criticism; EastEnders

Wikipedia's description of the original producer of EastEnders objective reads;

"the show was to be about "everyday life" in the inner city "today" and regarded it as a "slice of life". Creator/producer Julia Smith declared that "We don't make life, we reflect it". She also said, "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment,  racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism"."

Well that was in the mid 80s, & the East End has changed a lot in the last three decades.... but you wouldn't know that if you took the population of Walford as a reflection of everyday life in the inner city

In 1985 there were 49 cast members, 37 of whom were White British.. This compares with 41 out of 52 now. As a proportion of the cast this is an increase from 75.5% to 78.8%

(I would be interested to see the numbers for East London as a whole from 1985 compared to 2014)

Walford is supposedly a combination of Walthamstow and Stratford. The actual percentage of White Brits in Walthamstow in 2011 was 38%. In Stratford it was 17%, giving an average of  27.5%, and an overstatement by the BBC in 2014 of 51.3%

The proportion of Asian cast members was 4.1% in 1985, rising to 7.7% in 2014. This is against 21% of Walthamstow & 42% in Stratford, and average of 31.5% and an understatement of 23.8%

To be fair to the BBC, it has published articles on it's website denying claims of "white flight" in London

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21511904

.. and the fact that their flagship soap has seen an increase in White Brits in the East End is at least consistent with that belief!

I can't deny that I recognise the demographic represented in EastEnders.. the problem is I don't live in the East End, but Havering, where a lot of the people have moved to from... the East End.

Walford (2014) Walthamstow Newham Havering (2011)
White British                     79% 38% 17%  83%
Asian                                  8%  21%  42%  5%
Black                                   8%  17%  20%  5%
E European                         2%  11%  15%   3%

(I would have thought, in the three years since the census was published, the Havering percentages will have moved towards the Walford figures)

What does this matter? To me it doesn't really... I neither watch EastEnders or live in the East End. But what does bother me is why it doesn't matter to the people that wanted Brian True-May disciplined.

Hannah Pool, writing in The Guardian at the time said;

"If I was inclined to give True-May the benefit of the doubt, I'd say it's clear he believes he's simply giving his viewers what they want, which begs the question, does he think Midsomer fans are racist?"

That logic demands that Pool must believe the BBC thinks the UK racist, otherwise why couldn't we cope with a soap opera set in the capital with a demographically realistic cast? Why are the BBC pretending that the East End is still how it was in the 80s, when the facts tell us that demographic  headed East long ago?

"You Don't Have To Be A Hypocritical Coward To Be A Bookmaker... But It Helps"

Picture the scene. A chain restaurant in a leafy suburb, around 8pm any weekday evening

Customer: "Thank you very much, lovely pizza... could I have the bill please?"
Waiter:"Of course, Sir"
Customer:"I've got one of those midweek meal deal vouchers here on my phone..."
Waiter: "Bear with me, Sir...."

<Waiter disappears>

<Waiter reappears>

Waiter: "I've spoken to the manager and he's told me to ask you to fuck off Sir"
Customer: "Eh?"
Waiter: "I'm sorry but you only come in when you can use a voucher, & as you don't spend much money on drinks, we're not making enough profit out of you. I'm sure you understand"

I can't imagine that happening, can you? Yet less than a week ago I was sat in the trading room of a bookmakers hearing almost exactly that conversation take place twice in a matter of minutes, and no one batted an eyelid. A punter phoned up to take advantage of a promotional offer, only to be tersely informed that it wasn't open to people like him as he only bets when there is an offer on, while another was given a rap on the knuckles for playing at best price.

"The rotters!"

What brought this back to mind was another gruesome advert for a betting firm on the television. As with the Ladbrokes life, this Coral offering (can't think of a word beginning with 'C' for alliteration purposes, and that technique is bit old hat anyway isn't it?) depicted a typical working class scene, and no odds for any sporting event were shown. This time it involved a lad ordering from a burger van, served by the kind of girl I would genuinely love to marry. I covered my thoughts on the thinking behind this approach in my last rant, but on this occasion something else got my goat. At the end of the piece, designed to encourage people to gamble money for amusement, the object of my affection piped up with "But please bet responsibly"... and steam came out of my ears.

"Whaaat?!"

Bookmakers do not want people to bet responsibly. As anyone with half a clue in the betting game is well aware, and as evidenced by the conversation in the trading room, people who take care and caution are actively discouraged from betting to the point of being prevented from placing a bet! Bookmakers love irresponsible gamblers, it's what pays their mortgage. It now appears they are forced by the government to put a meaningless disclaimer at the end of adverts to encourage "responsible betting".  It's the equivalent of legalising cocaine so long as the dealer leaves the pub saying "don't do it all at once!" 

It has to be the least sincere bit of bullshit I've heard since I split up with the ex.

Here's how it is. Every bookmaker nowadays uses the exchange as a guide to their prices. As I am only too well aware, odds compilers are 21st Century coal miners. The job doesn't exist anymore, the game has changed as all games do, and everyone must adapt. The exchange (I thought about using the plural here, but it's just one exchange) sets the odds while bookmakers employ software experts to create impressive, smooth running websites, & advertising companies to entice punters in with offers & propaganda. All it takes to run the trading side of things are one or two wise heads and a team of youngsters answering the phone or tracing the odds. If a horse is 2/1 on Betfair, a firm will go: 15/8 if they don't like it (this would be a daring maverick trader in 2014 bookmaking!) 7/4, if they haven't thought about it or 6/4 if they fancy it. There you are! I have just taught you the ancient art of odds compilation.

If there is no early underlying market, as is the case in more obscure events such as lower league football, smaller tennis and snooker tournaments or politics, either prices are quoted with a huff and a puff, & bets laid in tiny size if you're a loser, or no price is offered until "the machine" is liquid if you're a winner...

...or only just losing.

With markets that are liquid on the "leading betting exchanges", this is the deal.

A client phones up and asks to back a horse that is 7/4 on the exchange, but advertised at 2/1 with this bookmaker. The bet will be referred to a "trader", and accepted in tiny size, probably 10% of the requested amount, with the account being restricted in future or closed... ("trading decision" Euurgh!!) When the call is over the people in the trading room will adopt a "shit moustache" face & call the client scum, while desperately refreshing oddschecker to see if they can get on the selection with any other firm.

Another client phones up and asks for a horse that is 7/4 on the exchange, but advertised at 5/4 with this bookmaker, The bet will be accepted in whatever size the client asks for, a note will be placed on the account "Good punter, lay whatever he likes". The people in the trading room will feel smug, self satisfied, somehow think they have done a good job & call him a mug, laughingly refreshing oddschecker to point out where he could have got better odds.

One of these clients is taking care over his gambling, & making sure he is getting the best deal for himself by betting selectively, usually in the morning when thinking straight after putting a fair bit of research. Some might say "betting responsibly". His reward is to be discouraged and treated like dirt, with sarcasm, disdain and phone slams.

The other fellow is paying more for something than he ought to, and wasting money recklessly by not shopping around. Often betting in the evening from a noisy pub after putting away a fair few pints. I would say this is betting irresponsibly. Yet this guy gets silver service, receives invites to boxes at Cheltenham, Wembley or any other event it suits the Bookmaker to host.

Imagine a barman giving a lapsed alcoholic who has fallen off the wagon a free shot of tequila when they order their sixth pint, but refusing to serve a shandy drinker who only uses the pub when a two for one meal deal is on. This is the way bookmakers treat the problem & the careful gambler. One is actively encouraged while the other is refused the time of day... and they've got them the wrong way around.

If the government were serious about dealing with problem gamblers, they would look into the way the bookmakers treat the respective types of punters. Many of my friends simply cant get their heads around the idea that a big bookmaker would refuse a £100 bet at 10/1; they think there is a law against it! Well I wish there were, & maybe one day there will be. A petition has been going around for a while encouraging the bookmakers to take bets! Here it is, please sign

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/paul-darling-chairman-association-of-british-bookmakers-we-call-on-the-chairman-of-the-abb-to-initiate-a-public-investigation-into-the-strategy-of-their-members-refusing-business-on-what-should-be-the-primary-activity-in-their-shops-betting


Alternatively, try this. Only bet with a bookmaker if the odds are better than Betfair, & see how long you last. If we all do it, they'll be bust before us.












.

“Luis, Louis” & the Ladbrokes Life

or

“Oh shit! We’ve drawn Inter Pellation away in the play off... Where the fucks that?”

Many column inches in betting and sporting journals have been devoted to Luis Suarez over the past 18 months. An unbelievably talented footballer who astonishingly won the Premier League Golden Boot at a canter having given the field a six game start. Not enough was made of that, an incredible achievement.

As for the other business, well disgraceful as it was, every panto needs a villain, and to be honest, the controversy made a great World Cup even more memorable.

But, I digress. I contend that punters who care about the pound in their pocket would be better off considering the work of a different Louis; 20^th Century critical philosopher, Louis Althusser & his theory of Interpellation than 21st Century cannibal/genius Suarez.

I can see you sneaking out, but please, bear with me.

Bearing?

Ok.

You may have noticed Bookmakers have started advertising on the television recently, and it goes without saying that these 60 seconds or so of patronising drivel should be ignored in precisely the same manner as adverts in their shop windows (the day a high street bookmaker advertises the 2^nd fav ew in an 8 runner novice chase with an 1/3 fav, it may be worth letting it cross your mind that it’s a level playing field. Even then I would phone the course for non runners). The thing is, as most of the adverts don’t actually advertise prices, what are they up to? What are they selling? Well, they are in fact a more subtle deception than the High St scorecast hoodwinks; a form of mind control, designed to plant the seed that the bookmaker is already part of your lifestyle. They try to show you that you are the kind of person who bets with them as a matter of course, and more importantly, in the way they would like you to. They work on the theory that to get someone to do what you want, you have to make them think it was their idea in the first place.

Let’s look at the common theme; unsophisticated “lads”. Paul Kaye’s wacky Maurice annoying Victor Chandler, the ultimate geezer, bet365’s Ray Winston & most of all the working class loveable scallies living the Ladbrokes Life, are all perfect examples of the dark forces of Interpellation at work.

Now I consider myself way above making cheap jokes such as Inter Pellation sounding like a team Hull might face in the Europa League prelims; I’ll leave that to lazy populists. Suffice to say that I studied this boring nonsense so you don’t have to... Althusser was a Marxist theorist. (Wake up at the back!) He suggested that representatives of big organisations release soundbites that prick the ears of the target audience, without appearing to address them directly, similar to the way a dog whistle is only responded to by creatures able to hear the noise. Once the target subconsciously recognizes himself in the message, he is under the spell, and becomes a blank canvas upon which the organisation can impose its ideology. It’s the oldest mind control trick in the book, and is seen in advertising all the time. Rather than sell the product on merit, the vendor leads you to believe that you are already the kind of person that uses it. In this case, not so much selling a lifestyle, but plonking themselves into the existing lifestyle of the people who wag their tail and run towards to the high pitched call with their tongues hanging out.

An example might be, I don’t know... a twenty something fella who enjoys a pint and a punt, bit of a cheeky chap, likes a bird... knocks about with a group of like minded blokes, albeit with different quirky characteristics?

Doesn’t mind taking 10/3 when there’s 4/1 about? Maybe a nicker in an FOBT??

This applies to thousands of young lads all over the country. There is even an option on Ladbrokes website to choose which one of the motley crue you resemble most! They really must think it is like taking candy from a baby

"Look into my eyes, the eyes, the eyes, not around the eyes..."

http://news.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/football/ladbrokes-life-sort-punter-you_198352.html

What you should know is that the rascals depicted are the bookies wet dream, and the bookies behind these television adverts are not selling anything, but advertising for roles to be filled in their idea of a soft porn film. They are looking for a bunch of people who see themselves in the characters portrayed, to play the part of someone who treats betting as a bit of a laugh that geezers do on the weekend like other fun pastimes. Young lads who likes pubs, five a side, don’t take anything too seriously, punt without taking best price/looking at Betfair first, chase girls, like silly dance move, ie ALMOST ALL YOUNG LADS. In reality, I would have thought the ultimate aim is to get them to march through the doors of shops to throw money into the bookies pension by playing the FOBT’s,  but they cant be advertised...

Yet.

If I had the dough, I’d buy advertising space and use it to air updated versions of the anti smoking adverts from the 70s featuring Superman defeating the evil “Nick O’Teen” to deter FOBT usage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOfHBi9iWzM

The bookie poses as your friend, but he is addicted to taking your money from the FIXED betting terminals while refusing genuine bets, just as poor old Nick was to inhaling poisonous smoke and preying on vulnerable children. IGNORE HIM!

Let us turn this on it’s head. Ever wondered why the characters in Bookmakers adverts aren’t bookish, pasty, bespectacled, excel spreadsheet types with untrendy haircuts? The type you don’t see in the pub with the lads at the weekend, chatting up women, and breakdancing after a few lager tops? This is because they’re at home in front of the computer waiting for team news/going changes so they can get an edge over the bookie, or working for them in trading rooms as odds compilers, laughing as the bad bets from the believers, the gut trusters, the optimists, in short, “the mugs”, in the adverts flow through on their liability screens. If you think this article acts as a killjoy and are already under the spell, I apologise, but do me a favour. At least try and be The Professor. You’ll be restricted to pennies before long, but at least you’ll have four mates with losing accounts to get you on...

and NEVER play the FOBT’s

Mass Immigration: A Stealth Tax on the Working Class

Mass Immigration: A Stealth Tax on the Working Class

 

 

Ask any mainstream politician about taxation policy and they instinctively reach for the quiver, pull up their tights and begin chanting the mantra of “taking from the rich to give to the poor”. To the public it is the anaesthetic that dulls the pain of paying the government a portion of their salary, the accepted Marxist incantation “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” David Cameron and Nick Clegg will squabble like schoolboys leading up to next year’s General Election over who takes the credit for raising the income tax threshold, while Ed Miliband’s plan to reinstate a 50p top rate is designed to win votes rather than accrue revenue. It’s the default populist position; the age old desire to play Robin Hood to the opposition’s Sheriff of Nottingham is alive and well in Westminster.

But the truth, absent from any manifesto, is that for well over a decade UK governments, whether Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour, have been enacting a policy that cannot help but lower the pay of the poor while simultaneously increasing the wealth of the rich, and they will do so for as long as they are elected. Hidden from the masses by a crafty sleight of hand, and denied the oxygen of public debate by smears and propaganda, it is nevertheless true; since the UK opened the door to the A8, mass immigration of cheap labour has been a stealth tax on Britain’s working class.

A favourite trick employed by politicians to deceive the public is to mislead by quoting spurious statistics. Anyone who has read George Orwell’s 1984 (compulsory in the build up to any election) will recognize the tactic of convincing the proles to doubt their instinct by unleashing a bewildering barrage of statistics and spin. So it is that the working class man, who has seen his job security diminish, his pay decrease, & his bills soar in the last ten years, is distracted by the illusion of mass immigration being a boon for the country. While he tries to reconcile this fantastic claim with the deteriorating circumstances of his own life, the smoke and mirrors of an abstract “GDP figure” is deployed to infer the economy would fall apart without this policy.

That is arguable, but what is not is that contained within the GDP figure are some winners, but many more losers, and it’s the lowest paid that lose every time. Mass immigration of cheap labour makes the poor poorer and the rich richer, it is a fact, as the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration confirm. A stealth tax is applied to the wages of the bottom 5% of earners to pay for a tax break for the top 5%. For every 1% of the labour market taken by immigrants, the lowest paid lose 0.6% of their wages. Who would expect it to be any different when the door is opened for millions of people, used to earning a fraction of the going rate in Britain, to compete with the British unskilled for employment by international corporations?

Employers and politicians claim that economic migrants are harder workers, and willing to do the jobs the British feel beneath them. David Lammy, a candidate for the next mayor of London, said as much in March when asked why British born workers turned down fruit-picking and jobs in Coffee shops...

“They don’t want to be security guards. They want to watch the X Factor.”

Well maybe this is why.

To illustrate the difference in wage expectation between residents of the A8 plus Bulgaria and Romania, and UK citizens, let us imagine a standardised minimum wage across the EU set at the current UK hourly rate (£6.31), and make a comparison using the actual minimums. This shows that economic migrants are effectively getting the following hourly rates when they take a minimum wage job in the UK

Bulgaria	£47.18
Romania	£43.30
Lithuania	£28.10
Latvia	£25.49
Czech	£24.50
Slovakia	£24.41
Hungary	£24.31
Estonia	£23.15
Poland	£21.28
Slovenia	£10.82

 

Who can blame people from any of those countries for working themselves into the ground for a minimum wage job? Why be surprised that their willingness to graft creates a favourable comparison with the “lazy” unskilled English youth? They are getting up to a 700% pay rise! Wouldn’t you be tempted to leave the UK if the going rate in the Sofia branch of Starbucks was £98,000 a year, or if picking crops in a Carpathian field paid £7,500 a month? But for Brits that isn’t the going rate, (it would be £1,700 a year in Starbucks, and £159 a month in the fields). The argument that EU immigration is a two way street falls at the first fence.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown knew only too well that this would be the result of opening the UK’s borders to the continent’s poorest countries, but they were intensely relaxed about the damaging effect on the working class. If any dared complain... well, ask Gillian Duffy. That the policy continues under the Coalition is all the proof needed that there is nothing between the three of them on this issue.

So when “progressive” politicians try to buy your votes with promises of tax cuts for the poorest and tax hikes for the richest, remember that already includes a hike to the minimum tax rate and a cut from the top. If they compare hard working immigrants with “feckless” British youth, remember that economic migrants have the incentive of a staggering pay rise, while our own youth can’t afford to go in the opposite direction, and remember that while we are members of the European Union, there is nothing anyone can do about it.