Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Laradus posted:

I'm not certain but is this the kind of thing you''re after?



No idea what the correct term is but was trying to find it via 'voter flow'. :shrug:

Yeah! The one I was thinking of had three elections (so two sets of flows) but that's the same style

Although looking around that seems to be poll data instead of the actual outcome, like here:


See how the LAB>CON / CON>LAB crossover is about equal, like on the left one?
But yeah, doesn't look like many Labour voters went Lib Dem

Lord of the Llamas posted:

They're called "Sankey" charts and probably one of the hardest things to google if you don't know what they're called

Cheers guy!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Private Speech posted:

So, again, supporting Brexit puts Labour on the correct path for the future? And Labour has about as much ability to soften Brexit as it has to stop it. The ultimate form it takes (barring any amendments in Lords, which I gather you see less urgent than Micheal loving Heseltine) is going to be decided purely by government negotiators. After this vote passes there is nothing anyone else can do to influence it, short of somehow bringing down the government and getting elected (ahahahhahhahaaah good luck with this the way the polls are).

You can influence it if public opinion turns against brexit over the next two years, so going through with it (instead of reversing Article 50) becomes electoral poison. Old Leave voters are going to die, the negotations are going to be a brutal dose of reality, the government is going to have to publicly defend its decisions and priorities instead of the current situation where they say "everything will be great!" and everyone goes "yay britain!"

Since nobody but the government has any direct say in what's happening, we need other parties making as much noise as possible, arguing what the government should be doing (and this doesn't need to be reasonable either, since they promised the moon on a stick) and making it clear the Tories are completely failing to do it. They need holding to account, the opposition needs to show everyone that the brexit dream that was sold is not going to happen, ideally by showing it was never going to work

However it gets reversed (2nd referendum, general election, government getting spooked) depends on how things pan out, but either way public opinion has to be turned against Brexit, because that's where the power to stop it lies

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Fangz posted:

I'll note your link sure doesn't cover the period I am talking about very well.

Here's a link from that period if you care
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/mar/31/socialexclusion.politics

quote:

The deep recession of the early 1990s during John Major's government curbed the growth in inequality, according to the IFS, as negative equity and white collar job cuts hit the middle classes hardest.

But the upward trend resumed in the first three years of the Labour government. City bonuses rose during the late 1990s boom while the poorest single parent families suffered benefit cuts and pensions rose more slowly than earnings.

The rise has been checked by the introduction in 2001 of new tax credits for low earners and more generous benefits which the Treasury estimates will have increased incomes by £60 a week for the poorest fifth of the population by this year.

But inequality was still higher in 2002 than when Labour came to power even though it had fallen slightly from the record gap reached in 2000.

quote:

Gordon Brown's help to the working poor has been the main reason for the reduction in child poverty, the IFS says, and it has also taken the edge off a rise in income inequality caused by soaring pay awards for Britain's richest 500,000 people. Without the introduction of new tax credits for low income working families and the extra help for those with children, the IFS said the gap between rich and poor would have widened by twice as much since 1997.

"Tax and benefit policy has kept the lid on what would otherwise have been a much bigger growth in inequality," the institute said. "Mr Brown has had to run to stand still."

quote:

"The distribution is skewed by a long tail of people on relatively high incomes," the IFS said. In 2002 there were 12.5 million people living in households with incomes below 60% of the median, after housing costs, a slight fall from the 13.9 million living below the poverty line when Labour came to power.

But Labour's anti-poverty drive has been concentrated on two groups: pensioners and children. Poverty has remained high for individuals on low incomes without children. Relative poverty levels among this group are now at their highest since records began in the early 1960s.

Moreover, the IFS said there is evidence that the government's measures so far have helped the "richest half" of the poor and the plight of the hardcore of deprived families left behind has worsened.

The key here - and with most criticism of Blair's government - is that it didn't actually fix the underlying problems, it patched over them temporarily (which is still important) and left them to grow and hit again later. It was about getting immediate results and pushing the consequences down the line. That's why the Blair government is getting blamed for the state the country was left in, and why people want actual left-wing reforms instead of the Third Way version of business as usual

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Spangly A posted:

World Bank needs a loving sort function on their tools. This is why it's never ok to use non-checked data.

Do the programming Spangly

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Fangz posted:

Okay, do you understand what the mislabelling of debt represents? It represents people in the US packaging stuff like subprimes into apparently safe assets that are then sold on. The result is that banks, including UK banks, bought these 'toxic assets' that were labelled as safe when they weren't. How exactly does UK government policy change that? When the issue is literally financial products being mislabelled? I can't really see how without literally banning financial transactions with the US.

The problem wasn't 'mislabelling' (although the ratings agencies being worthless is another issue), the problem was those bonds being repackaged into derivatives with much less regulation. Securities based on Credit Default Swaps were the big one - banks could effectively bet on the performance of an asset without needing to own it.

You could basically create these synthetic CDOs out of thin air, if you could find a buyer for them, and there was plenty of appetite for it. And banks, with lower capital requirements and less oversight on these kinds of investments, were able to gamble as big as they wanted with money they didn't have. And they lost, and we had to pay up

Regulation doesn't mean preventing business, it means restricting the ability to pull this kind of poo poo and forcing them to operate safely - which means less 'dynamism' and profit, which is why the regulation was lax in the first place

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

mfcrocker posted:

HISTORYSNIPE: On this day in 1900, Labour were founded.

Now that's a quality snipe

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

big scary monsters posted:

In other Prime Minister Emeritus news, good to see that Cameron has been keeping himself busy with worthwhile endeavours.
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/836294380281606144

This is good for PigCoin

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

JFairfax posted:

are you loving kidding me?

MASSIVE LOLZ

Good to see the best post-fuckup work he's managed to get is selling poo poo out of the back of a van

  • Locked thread