Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The French election markets are too confident – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited April 23 in General
imageThe French election markets are too confident – politicalbetting.com

After the brawl, the duel. The French Presidential election has been in full swing for the best part of a year for many voters, but we’ve now entered the final fortnight where the top two candidates face off. Polls show Macron consolidating his position and his lead returning to roughly 55:45, but I feel markets are too confident that the polls are spot on.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    edited April 16
    Thanks so much for this Quincel. That 16-1 for 60-65% is seriously good value. I may well go for it and arb on 55%-60%.

    You can get 40-1 on Macron at anything over 65%. That's 40-1 to repeat the 2017 result. Remember, he did better in this first round than last time.

    I still think it will break 60:40. There's some good value betting to be had here.

    Love it. Thank you. Brilliant tip.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523
    edited April 16
    Hills are not taking bets from me at the moment. On Betfair, note there are sometimes price differences between the named candidate and party markets. At the time of writing, Le Pen is 9/10.5 to win, but National Rally is 9.2/9.6.

    ETA I cashed out a week or so back, just before the first round.

    2nd ETA there might be similar small anomalies between the Macron & Le Pen percentage markets.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,604
    Ipsos-Sopra poll 13-15 April just out : Macron 56, Le Pen 44

    Previous day was 55/45.

    10 polls completed in last two days - Macron on 53 or higher in every poll except one.

    All polls moving in Macron direction or flat.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_French_presidential_election#Macron_vs._Le_Pen
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749
    Who else has got that Sunday morning feeling? ;)
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,861

    Who else has got that Sunday morning feeling? ;)

    Yep - it's back to work tomorrow isn't it? ;)
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,412
    Good chat on Gobekli Tepe last night. What’s fascinating to me about its mystery is what context its society came up in. Was it an isolated bubble of art and culture in a vast vacuum of small bands struggling to survive? Or were there contemporaneous equivalents all over the place?

    Equally given we missed this for so long, what else might we have missed that came before, ravages by the destruction wrought by the ice age and shifting coastlines. If I was the worlds richest man I don’t think I’d bother buying Twitter but I’d be mighty tempted to spend an equivalent amount on subsea archeology on places like Doggerland.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,261
    murali_s said:

    Who else has got that Sunday morning feeling? ;)

    Yep - it's back to work tomorrow isn't it? ;)
    Double shift time for the clergy!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,112
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: had a free bet and put it on Perez to win at 13, each way.

    Given the Red Bull's competitiveness but also the chance for woe, seems decent odds to me. He could've won in Saudi Arabia, had misfortune not bedevilled his race.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,256
    Heathener said:

    Thanks so much for this Quincel. That 16-1 for 60-65% is seriously good value. I may well go for it and arb on 55%-60%.

    You can get 40-1 on Macron at anything over 65%. That's 40-1 to repeat the 2017 result. Remember, he did better in this first round than last time.

    I still think it will break 60:40. There's some good value betting to be had here.

    Love it. Thank you. Brilliant tip.

    Where is the arb?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,256
    Smarkets 62-66% of the vote is currently 20 (thin market though).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234
    Stocky said:

    Heathener said:

    Thanks so much for this Quincel. That 16-1 for 60-65% is seriously good value. I may well go for it and arb on 55%-60%.

    You can get 40-1 on Macron at anything over 65%. That's 40-1 to repeat the 2017 result. Remember, he did better in this first round than last time.

    I still think it will break 60:40. There's some good value betting to be had here.

    Love it. Thank you. Brilliant tip.

    Where is the arb?
    There is no arb.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,256
    Check out BF, I just put a couple of quid on 65% or higher at 150
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,722
    No one has mentioned the elephant in the room. Marginal turnout. Polling remains poor at picking up certainty to vote.
    No doubt with 100% Macron wins. Last time he was an unknown quantity. Far more, who would choose him this time will stay at home. Good bet on Le Pen.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,910
    felix said:
    I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    Heathener said:

    Thanks so much for this Quincel. That 16-1 for 60-65% is seriously good value. I may well go for it and arb on 55%-60%.

    You can get 40-1 on Macron at anything over 65%. That's 40-1 to repeat the 2017 result. Remember, he did better in this first round than last time.

    I still think it will break 60:40. There's some good value betting to be had here.

    Love it. Thank you. Brilliant tip.

    Ahem, from April 14:

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3886021#Comment_3886021
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    Quincel said:

    felix said:
    I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
    A massive 81.8% think we should distinguish between asylum seekers and economic refugees, but how do we do that without them having their case heard here?

    That poll is full of contradictions, and many details of the proposed scheme are yet to be revealed.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    Quincel said:

    felix said:
    I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
    Except no-one is being sent to Rwanda to have their UK asylum application processed!!

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178
    Foxy said:

    Quincel said:

    felix said:
    I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
    A massive 81.8% think we should distinguish between asylum seekers and economic refugees, but how do we do that without them having their case heard here?

    That poll is full of contradictions, and many details of the proposed scheme are yet to be revealed.
    Don’t you mean ‘decided’ rather than ‘revealed?’ It’s a Johnson policy after all!
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,256
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Thanks so much for this Quincel. That 16-1 for 60-65% is seriously good value. I may well go for it and arb on 55%-60%.

    You can get 40-1 on Macron at anything over 65%. That's 40-1 to repeat the 2017 result. Remember, he did better in this first round than last time.

    I still think it will break 60:40. There's some good value betting to be had here.

    Love it. Thank you. Brilliant tip.

    Ahem, from April 14:

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3886021#Comment_3886021
    Yes, great spot Foxy, I agreed with you at the time and did place a small bet, topped up today.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529

    Quincel said:

    felix said:
    I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
    Except no-one is being sent to Rwanda to have their UK asylum application processed!!

    Good morning all. Currently in the waiting area of our Community Hospital, where Mrs C is being ‘processed’ for an MRI scan. Nothing serious, we think, but ‘We have the Technology’!

    On topic, is it surprising that the Mail has a poll with questions written to give a pro-Conservative bias.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983
    Foxy said:
    Suspect they will be the greatest group to sit it out in the second round.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,261

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    If that was known I suspect the polling might be even stronger!
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,261

    Quincel said:

    felix said:
    I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
    Except no-one is being sent to Rwanda to have their UK asylum application processed!!

    Good morning all. Currently in the waiting area of our Community Hospital, where Mrs C is being ‘processed’ for an MRI scan. Nothing serious, we think, but ‘We have the Technology’!

    On topic, is it surprising that the Mail has a poll with questions written to give a pro-Conservative bias.
    Ah yes all polling is suspect when I don't like what it says...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    How many of them expect to be caught anyway? Not many.

    So they will assume it won't apply to them, and pay the money.

    Which is why this will make little or no difference.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    felix said:

    Quincel said:

    felix said:
    I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
    Except no-one is being sent to Rwanda to have their UK asylum application processed!!

    Good morning all. Currently in the waiting area of our Community Hospital, where Mrs C is being ‘processed’ for an MRI scan. Nothing serious, we think, but ‘We have the Technology’!

    On topic, is it surprising that the Mail has a poll with questions written to give a pro-Conservative bias.
    Ah yes all polling is suspect when I don't like what it says...
    Entirely misrepresenting the government’s policy clearly makes the poll flawed. What’s the point in denying that?

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749
    Off-topic:

    For anyone trying to make sense of this war, an Australian gent has a channel called 'Perun' which goes into various aspects, from drones, anti-tank missiles, to the role for reservists and the economics of the war. All are long-form. I am a total military non-expert, but it *feels* like he is both knowledgeable and fair.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q

    Well worth a watch IMO if you have the time.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    felix said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    If that was known I suspect the polling might be even stronger!
    Other polling does not indicate that.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,739
    Some bad polling for the PM in The Times.

    Nearly two thirds of Britons want Boris Johnson out if he gets more party fines YouGov finds.




  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,739
    A majority also want Sunak to go as well.


  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,739
    edited April 16
    Only 14 per cent of Britons think he is telling the truth when he says he did not realise at the time that he was breaking the rules, compared with 76 per cent who think that he is not telling the truth.

    Voters are overwhelmingly against Johnson on the issue. Sixty-eight per cent believe he intentionally misled parliament, including 48 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 32 per cent of present Conservative voters. Only 18 per cent of Britons believe he did not intentionally mislead.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178
    edited April 16

    Only 14 per cent of Britons think he is telling the truth when he says he did not realise at the time that he was breaking the rules, compared with 76 per cent who think that he is not telling the truth.

    Voters are overwhelmingly against Johnson on the issue. Sixty-eight per cent believe he intentionally misled parliament, including 48 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 32 per cent of present Conservative voters. Only 18 per cent of Britons believe he did not intentionally mislead.

    Which 'he?' Sunak or Johnson?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Some bad polling for the PM in The Times.

    Nearly two thirds of Britons want Boris Johnson out if he gets more party fines YouGov finds.




    The headline voting intention in that poll has the Tories back down to 33.

    Labour 38
    Tories 33
    LibDems 10
    Greens 7

    As ever with YouGov, the Greens look a bit toppy.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,739
    Eighteen per cent of voters, and 20 per cent of Conservative supporters, agreed with the statement that “while Boris Johnson should resign, it would be wrong for us to change prime minister now because of the situation in Ukraine”. But 47 per cent say he should resign “regardless of the situation in Ukraine” and 24 per cent say he should not resign anyway.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,739
    Labour remains in the lead on voting intention. Thirty-eight per cent would vote Labour in a general election, up one point on last week, while 33 per cent would vote Conservative, down one point on last week. The Liberal Democrats are on 10 per cent and the Greens on 7 per cent.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,739
    ydoethur said:

    Only 14 per cent of Britons think he is telling the truth when he says he did not realise at the time that he was breaking the rules, compared with 76 per cent who think that he is not telling the truth.

    Voters are overwhelmingly against Johnson on the issue. Sixty-eight per cent believe he intentionally misled parliament, including 48 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 32 per cent of present Conservative voters. Only 18 per cent of Britons believe he did not intentionally mislead.

    Which 'he?' Sunak or Johnson?
    PM
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    On topic, the big issue in the French polling is the Melenchon number. Many pollsters had him even lower than 18 for R1 (the last YouGov had him on 16). For me, that raises big questions about the polling on what Melenchon voters will do in R2. My guess - no more than that - is that Melenchon got a proportion of soft left tactical voters in R1 who were trying to prevent Le Pen get to R2. These were the ones missed. If that’s right, I suspect most will switch to Macron in R2 and he’ll be at the higher end of his current range.

    “If” being the operative word.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178

    ydoethur said:

    Only 14 per cent of Britons think he is telling the truth when he says he did not realise at the time that he was breaking the rules, compared with 76 per cent who think that he is not telling the truth.

    Voters are overwhelmingly against Johnson on the issue. Sixty-eight per cent believe he intentionally misled parliament, including 48 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 32 per cent of present Conservative voters. Only 18 per cent of Britons believe he did not intentionally mislead.

    Which 'he?' Sunak or Johnson?
    PM
    I am amazed.

    Who are these 14% who think he's telling the truth?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,923
    The likeliest outcome is still that Macron is re elected but with a smaller majority than 2017.

    He is too unpopular, especially with rising cost of living to win by another landslide. However most voters are still too wary of Le Pen to make her President.

    Only things that could really change that are an outstanding performance by either at the debate this week. Or a very low turnout
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

    The point of the policy is not for it to work, it is to pillory "lefy human rights lawyers" and "obstructive Whitehall red tape" it is to enable further authoritarianism.

    I suspect that no more than a token handful will be deported as intended.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178
    Foxy said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

    The point of the policy is not for it to work, it is to pillory "lefy human rights lawyers" and "obstructive Whitehall red tape" it is to enable further authoritarianism.

    I suspect that no more than a token handful will be deported as intended.
    Surely the point is to distract attention from the fact that Johnson's a criminal?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,923
    edited April 16

    Some bad polling for the PM in The Times.

    Nearly two thirds of Britons want Boris Johnson out if he gets more party fines YouGov finds.




    The headline voting intention in that poll has the Tories back down to 33.

    Labour 38
    Tories 33
    LibDems 10
    Greens 7

    As ever with YouGov, the Greens look a bit toppy.

    Labour only 5% ahead after the week Boris has had is not really a complete disaster for him. I was expecting Starmer to be 10%+ ahead and the Tories to even be down to 30% or less after the PM and Chancellor were fined
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405
    Interesting discussion between So and Felix.

    If the Tories want to dog whistle their base and then find false comfort in questionable polls, that seems ok to me. Let them conduct politics in an increasingly out of touch but decreasing in size bubble. The only risk is when they are ultimate defeated they then might call foul much as the Trump supporters did in 2020.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405
    Foxy said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

    The point of the policy is not for it to work, it is to pillory "lefy human rights lawyers" and "obstructive Whitehall red tape" it is to enable further authoritarianism.

    I suspect that no more than a token handful will be deported as intended.
    It’s a dividing line. The sad fact is that all the government has is dividing lines.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,375
    edited April 16
    The poll shows how little voting nitention is shifting now. Taken in the last couple of days, after the Rwandan plan was announced and the Partygate fines, people have a view on both when asked but voting intention remains much the same. The basic Conservative problem is that the spread of tactical voting probably means that they need close to 40% to win this time. It doesn't look especially likely.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    HYUFD said:

    Some bad polling for the PM in The Times.

    Nearly two thirds of Britons want Boris Johnson out if he gets more party fines YouGov finds.




    The headline voting intention in that poll has the Tories back down to 33.

    Labour 38
    Tories 33
    LibDems 10
    Greens 7

    As ever with YouGov, the Greens look a bit toppy.

    Labour only 5% ahead after the week Boris is had is not really a complete disaster for him. I was expecting Starmer to be 10%+ ahead and the Tories to even be down to 30% or less after the PM and Chancellor were fined

    With Labour+LibDem+Green on 55, that 33 would worry me a lot if I were a Tory.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420

    On topic, the big issue in the French polling is the Melenchon number. Many pollsters had him even lower than 18 for R1 (the last YouGov had him on 16). For me, that raises big questions about the polling on what Melenchon voters will do in R2. My guess - no more than that - is that Melenchon got a proportion of soft left tactical voters in R1 who were trying to prevent Le Pen get to R2. These were the ones missed. If that’s right, I suspect most will switch to Macron in R2 and he’ll be at the higher end of his current range.

    “If” being the operative word.

    I think the Melenchon vote will break as 2017, mostly to Macron. The soft left, the Muslims, and the pro-EU will go to Macron. I reckon Macron on 60% still, so that end of the poll looks value.

    My strategy on a number of recent elections is to bet both ends against the consensus, as bettors do tend to have more confidence than polling really justifies. This strategy of @Quincel is similar.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    The poll shows how little voting nitention is shifting now. Taken in the last couple of days, after the Rwandan plan was announced and the Partygate fines, people have a view on both when asked but voting intention remains much the same. The basic Conservative problem is that the spread of tactical voting probably means that need close to 40% to win this time. It doesn't look especially likely.

    Yep - that 55% for Lab, LD and Green combined is a very big number.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,574
    Excellent piece @Quincel - thanks.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 1,697

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    I am confused. In your first paragraph, you talk about economic migration. In your second paragraph, you talk about people from Afghanistan. Don’t you think most people coming from Afghanistan have valid asylum claims? You talk about people from Iran, which has an oppressive regime we regularly criticise and have sanctions against. You mention Iraq, a country still in a mess after so much war.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    Jonathan said:

    Interesting discussion between So and Felix.

    If the Tories want to dog whistle their base and then find false comfort in questionable polls, that seems ok to me. Let them conduct politics in an increasingly out of touch but decreasing in size bubble. The only risk is when they are ultimate defeated they then might call foul much as the Trump supporters did in 2020.

    If you need to totally misrepresent a policy to get support for it, the implication is that it’s not a very good policy. But, as others have pointed out, this is not about finding solutions, it’s about picking a fight with the “woke left” designed to reanimate the Tory base. This government has nothing else to offer. It is all out of other ideas.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,412
    edited April 16
    I believe I said something a couple of days ago about Putin potentially looking East for an easier gain, namely Kazakhstan…

    https://twitter.com/ericamarat/status/1515085010583314434?s=21&t=v_xDJP9RKO-wjPdjK4UZEg

    “Kazakhstan has now explained that the May 9 parade is not feasible because the priority is to maintain combat readiness of the armed forces to ensure protection and defense of gov and military facilities. Hands down, this is bold.

    Correct me if I’m wrong: Kazakhstan MoD has basically said that instead of celebrating Soviet Russian May 9 version of the V-day, they are instead preparing for a now plausible Russian “special operation” scenario on their territory“
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405
    The interesting question for the Tories is whether replacing Boris will win votes net. There are clearly some votes out there, currently on strike, who will return if the Conservatives are led by someone who confirm to basic standards of integrity and decency. However, the current Tory vote contains within it many who are there for Boris and that support his populist contributions to politics however destructive or dodgy.

    My hunch is that they are probably better off with Boris,, because the tribal vote will construct reasons to overlook his failings and failures. Whereas the Boris fan club might well back Farage, rather than a more conventional Tory.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

    The point of the policy is not for it to work, it is to pillory "lefy human rights lawyers" and "obstructive Whitehall red tape" it is to enable further authoritarianism.

    I suspect that no more than a token handful will be deported as intended.
    Surely the point is to distract attention from the fact that Johnson's a criminal?
    And the record inflation figures, and record NHS waiting lists, the tax rises and the real terms pay and benefits cuts.

    There is a lot that Big Dog wants to not talk about.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    Nice to see staunch offshore patriot James Dyson still doing business in Russia.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,637

    felix said:

    Quincel said:

    felix said:
    I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
    Except no-one is being sent to Rwanda to have their UK asylum application processed!!

    Good morning all. Currently in the waiting area of our Community Hospital, where Mrs C is being ‘processed’ for an MRI scan. Nothing serious, we think, but ‘We have the Technology’!

    On topic, is it surprising that the Mail has a poll with questions written to give a pro-Conservative bias.
    Ah yes all polling is suspect when I don't like what it says...
    Entirely misrepresenting the government’s policy clearly makes the poll flawed. What’s the point in denying that?

    A right wing press seriously misrepresents a government plan to coddle their right wing racist readership. Whats new?


  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,482
    edited April 16
    Foxy said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

    The point of the policy is not for it to work, it is to pillory "lefy human rights lawyers" and "obstructive Whitehall red tape" it is to enable further authoritarianism.

    I suspect that no more than a token handful will be deported as intended.
    Talking of which, here's another interesting wrinkle:

    8. How Priti Patel and Vincent Biruta's trade in human beings is to work.

    - UK government to offer Rwanda lists of people.
    - Rwanda can say yes or no to any of those people offered to it by UK.
    - But the people transported to Rwanda (for cash) can not say yes or no to Rwanda

    https://t.co/Jt8jxwcVQK

    It looks like Rwanda saw the UK government coming.

    Given the poor odds of the Channel crossing, a small risk of being passed somewhere else isn't going to be a game changer, is it?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,574

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Yep.

    Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405

    Nice to see staunch offshore patriot James Dyson still doing business in Russia.

    That sucks.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,889
    felix said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    If that was known I suspect the polling might be even stronger!
    Indeed. Who knew that the UK were full of racists. Even ex pats in Spain
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 8,968
    Under HMG policy how would a refugee find refuge in Britain?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,013
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Only 14 per cent of Britons think he is telling the truth when he says he did not realise at the time that he was breaking the rules, compared with 76 per cent who think that he is not telling the truth.

    Voters are overwhelmingly against Johnson on the issue. Sixty-eight per cent believe he intentionally misled parliament, including 48 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 32 per cent of present Conservative voters. Only 18 per cent of Britons believe he did not intentionally mislead.

    Which 'he?' Sunak or Johnson?
    PM
    I am amazed.

    Who are these 14% who think he's telling the truth?
    I think he might be telling the truth about the birthday gathering. Pretty sure he's not telling the truth about the general picture though.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,637

    Foxy said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

    The point of the policy is not for it to work, it is to pillory "lefy human rights lawyers" and "obstructive Whitehall red tape" it is to enable further authoritarianism.

    I suspect that no more than a token handful will be deported as intended.
    Talking of which, here's another interesting wrinkle:

    8. How Priti Patel and Vincent Biruta's trade in human beings is to work.

    - UK government to offer Rwanda lists of people.
    - Rwanda can say yes or no to any of those people offered to it by UK.
    - But the people transported to Rwanda (for cash) can not say yes or no to Rwanda

    https://t.co/Jt8jxwcVQK

    It looks like Rwanda saw the UK government coming.

    Given the poor odds of the Channel crossing, a small risk of being passed somewhere else isn't going to be a game changer, is it?
    If the UK government is selling people to Rwanda, and washing their hands of them, it sounds like people traffiking to me. A kind of slave trade which we outlawed years ago.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

    The point of the policy is not for it to work, it is to pillory "lefy human rights lawyers" and "obstructive Whitehall red tape" it is to enable further authoritarianism.

    I suspect that no more than a token handful will be deported as intended.
    Surely the point is to distract attention from the fact that Johnson's a criminal?
    And the record inflation figures, and record NHS waiting lists, the tax rises and the real terms pay and benefits cuts.

    There is a lot that Big Dog wants to not talk about.
    Yes, but I don't think he cares about them. He's willing to go with his true Micawberish approach that's served him well for so long that 'something will turn up.'

    The FPN however is big, because it's personal.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405

    Under HMG policy how would a refugee find refuge in Britain?

    That’s a really good question,
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    Jonathan said:

    Nice to see staunch offshore patriot James Dyson still doing business in Russia.

    That sucks.
    He's a moral vacuum.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,637
    Roger said:

    felix said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    If that was known I suspect the polling might be even stronger!
    Indeed. Who knew that the UK were full of racists. Even ex pats in Spain
    no shit, Sherlock...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178
    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nice to see staunch offshore patriot James Dyson still doing business in Russia.

    That sucks.
    He's a moral vacuum.
    He's not on the ball.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,353

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Yep.

    Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
    Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.

    I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,952
    Jonathan said:

    Nice to see staunch offshore patriot James Dyson still doing business in Russia.

    That sucks.
    He’ll be hoping there’s no blow back.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420

    Under HMG policy how would a refugee find refuge in Britain?

    I think there are two legal routes to claim asylum.

    1) the overseas application centres such as were in Afghanistan.

    2) entering the UK legally on another visa (such as a student visa) then applying.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,910
    Taz said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Yep.

    Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
    Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.

    I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
    It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r?fbclid=IwAR0zjrlgHvj3AF5GS1EG0LXjWSQFZ2SPDL9AwPKUYZ3K1_54Z_ykoXtLhsk#part-1--transfer-arrangments
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,923
    edited April 16

    The poll shows how little voting nitention is shifting now. Taken in the last couple of days, after the Rwandan plan was announced and the Partygate fines, people have a view on both when asked but voting intention remains much the same. The basic Conservative problem is that the spread of tactical voting probably means that they need close to 40% to win this time. It doesn't look especially likely.

    The polling suggests Starmer will be PM yes. However it also suggests the Tories are still nowhere near a 1997 landslide defeat or even polling as low as Brown Labour pre 2010 or they were under May in Spring 2019
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749
    moonshine said:

    I believe I said something a couple of days ago about Putin potentially looking East for an easier gain, namely Kazakhstan…

    https://twitter.com/ericamarat/status/1515085010583314434?s=21&t=v_xDJP9RKO-wjPdjK4UZEg

    “Kazakhstan has now explained that the May 9 parade is not feasible because the priority is to maintain combat readiness of the armed forces to ensure protection and defense of gov and military facilities. Hands down, this is bold.

    Correct me if I’m wrong: Kazakhstan MoD has basically said that instead of celebrating Soviet Russian May 9 version of the V-day, they are instead preparing for a now plausible Russian “special operation” scenario on their territory“

    That sounds ominous.

    I said a while back that Kazakhstan should be congratulated in the long run for the stance they have taken on the war in Ukraine. I can imagine that Putin is really very, very angry with them. Given the cultural and economic ties between them and Russia, it cannot have been an easy decision.

    Though the question is what troops Putin can field to perform yet another 'special operation', especially if he does not declare war on Ukraine.

    This evil (*) Russian regime must be stopped now, because stopping it later will be even more costly.

    (*) I know some people grasp their handbags at my using their term. Again I ask them what they'd prefer me to use.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,068

    Foxy said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

    The point of the policy is not for it to work, it is to pillory "lefy human rights lawyers" and "obstructive Whitehall red tape" it is to enable further authoritarianism.

    I suspect that no more than a token handful will be deported as intended.
    Talking of which, here's another interesting wrinkle:

    8. How Priti Patel and Vincent Biruta's trade in human beings is to work.

    - UK government to offer Rwanda lists of people.
    - Rwanda can say yes or no to any of those people offered to it by UK.
    - But the people transported to Rwanda (for cash) can not say yes or no to Rwanda

    https://t.co/Jt8jxwcVQK

    It looks like Rwanda saw the UK government coming.

    Given the poor odds of the Channel crossing, a small risk of being passed somewhere else isn't going to be a game changer, is it?
    If the UK government is selling people to Rwanda, and washing their hands of them, it sounds like people traffiking to me. A kind of slave trade which we outlawed years ago.
    The whole thing definitely has a slave trade kind of vibe to it. No wonder the Tories didn't want Colston's statue taking down.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,353
    Quincel said:

    Taz said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Yep.

    Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
    Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.

    I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
    It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r?fbclid=IwAR0zjrlgHvj3AF5GS1EG0LXjWSQFZ2SPDL9AwPKUYZ3K1_54Z_ykoXtLhsk#part-1--transfer-arrangments
    Thanks Quincel.

    Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.

    Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.

    We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.

    We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,889

    The British will be Pariahs of Europe.

    Our international reputation will be shot. Even Ukraine will feel dirty dealing with us.

    No one cares about the detail of the policy. Just that we're planning deportations of immigrants to Rwanda.

    It reads like something the Nazis were planning for the Jews in the 30's.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114
    edited April 16
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Only 14 per cent of Britons think he is telling the truth when he says he did not realise at the time that he was breaking the rules, compared with 76 per cent who think that he is not telling the truth.

    Voters are overwhelmingly against Johnson on the issue. Sixty-eight per cent believe he intentionally misled parliament, including 48 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 32 per cent of present Conservative voters. Only 18 per cent of Britons believe he did not intentionally mislead.

    Which 'he?' Sunak or Johnson?
    PM
    I am amazed.

    Who are these 14% who think he's telling the truth?
    I think he might be telling the truth about the birthday gathering. Pretty sure he's not telling the truth about the general picture though.
    Doesn't matter. He should have said instantly 'Aw shucks, how kind of you, but this really isn't on - back to work, but let's have a piece sent round with our coffee/tea at elevenses'.

    Wlat else?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,174

    On topic, the big issue in the French polling is the Melenchon number. Many pollsters had him even lower than 18 for R1 (the last YouGov had him on 16). For me, that raises big questions about the polling on what Melenchon voters will do in R2. My guess - no more than that - is that Melenchon got a proportion of soft left tactical voters in R1 who were trying to prevent Le Pen get to R2. These were the ones missed. If that’s right, I suspect most will switch to Macron in R2 and he’ll be at the higher end of his current range.

    “If” being the operative word.

    It may just be a weighting issue. Before the first round some Melenchon supporters were clinging to the raw data which had Melenchon higher.

    Zemmour's result was also lower than any of the polls indicated but he outperformed in Paris and came third, so perhaps the pollsters are struggling to weight urban vs rural voters correctly.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,722
    edited April 16

    moonshine said:

    I believe I said something a couple of days ago about Putin potentially looking East for an easier gain, namely Kazakhstan…

    https://twitter.com/ericamarat/status/1515085010583314434?s=21&t=v_xDJP9RKO-wjPdjK4UZEg

    “Kazakhstan has now explained that the May 9 parade is not feasible because the priority is to maintain combat readiness of the armed forces to ensure protection and defense of gov and military facilities. Hands down, this is bold.

    Correct me if I’m wrong: Kazakhstan MoD has basically said that instead of celebrating Soviet Russian May 9 version of the V-day, they are instead preparing for a now plausible Russian “special operation” scenario on their territory“

    That sounds ominous.

    I said a while back that Kazakhstan should be congratulated in the long run for the stance they have taken on the war in Ukraine. I can imagine that Putin is really very, very angry with them. Given the cultural and economic ties between them and Russia, it cannot have been an easy decision.

    Though the question is what troops Putin can field to perform yet another 'special operation', especially if he does not declare war on Ukraine.

    This evil (*) Russian regime must be stopped now, because stopping it later will be even more costly.

    (*) I know some people grasp their handbags at my using their term. Again I ask them what they'd prefer me to use.
    It isn't "grasping handbags".
    It is merely an objection to the implication that certain persons are under the influence of mysterious outside malevolent forces.
    Thus downplaying Putin, and by extension, Russia, full agency in their moral choices.
    Evil doesn't exist. Horrendous choices do.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,889
    edited April 16
    Jonathan said:

    Nice to see staunch offshore patriot James Dyson still doing business in Russia.

    That sucks.
    Brexiteers suck. Time to call a spade a spade
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,148
    Roger said:


    The British will be Pariahs of Europe.

    Our international reputation will be shot. Even Ukraine will feel dirty dealing with us.

    No one cares about the detail of the policy. Just that we're planning deportations of immigrants to Rwanda.

    It reads like something the Nazis were planning for the Jews in the 30's.

    Odd then, that the article quoted upthread includes a French Muslim family moving to Birmingham, because they so disliked the way they were treated in your country of choice.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,430
    Taz said:

    Quincel said:

    Taz said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Yep.

    Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
    Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.

    I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
    It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r?fbclid=IwAR0zjrlgHvj3AF5GS1EG0LXjWSQFZ2SPDL9AwPKUYZ3K1_54Z_ykoXtLhsk#part-1--transfer-arrangments
    Thanks Quincel.

    Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.

    Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.

    We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.

    We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
    Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749
    An interesting tweet about a repair to the railway line to allow trains to run back to Chernihiv. It is easy to forget that as well as troops and militia, there are millions of people working in Ukraine just to keep the basic infrastructure of life going, from power to water, from food distribution to medical work.

    https://twitter.com/AKamyshin/status/1515047569004580874

    And a related article:
    https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20220416_10/
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,430
    Roger said:


    The British will be Pariahs of Europe.

    Our international reputation will be shot. Even Ukraine will feel dirty dealing with us.

    No one cares about the detail of the policy. Just that we're planning deportations of immigrants to Rwanda.

    It reads like something the Nazis were planning for the Jews in the 30's.

    Aren't the Danes doing the same thing?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,148
    The odds on Le Pen are way too long. Macron is only one bad debate or gaffe away from losing (and of course, one good debate or Le Pen gaffe away from winning comfortably).

    Le Pen won two departments in 2017. On current polling, she'll win 45.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420

    Foxy said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

    The point of the policy is not for it to work, it is to pillory "lefy human rights lawyers" and "obstructive Whitehall red tape" it is to enable further authoritarianism.

    I suspect that no more than a token handful will be deported as intended.
    Talking of which, here's another interesting wrinkle:

    8. How Priti Patel and Vincent Biruta's trade in human beings is to work.

    - UK government to offer Rwanda lists of people.
    - Rwanda can say yes or no to any of those people offered to it by UK.
    - But the people transported to Rwanda (for cash) can not say yes or no to Rwanda

    https://t.co/Jt8jxwcVQK

    It looks like Rwanda saw the UK government coming.

    Given the poor odds of the Channel crossing, a small risk of being passed somewhere else isn't going to be a game changer, is it?
    Yes, so Rwanda has taken control.

    This is not an off shoring proposal it is a deportation proposal, where Rwanda takes deportees. In practice I suspect that it will be those who have exhausted their appeals here, whose home country has refused, or doesn't have direct flights, such as Iran.

    It is very unlikely that the suggestion that people will be taken directly from boats to the airport will happen.

    Incidentally the success rate for the boat arrivals is very high:

    "Top nationalities of small boat arrivals in 2021 compared to success rate in asylum claims before appeal:

    8,000 Iranians: 89% get asylum
    5,000 Iraqis: 47% get asylum
    3,000 Eritreans: 97% get asylum
    2,000 Syrians: 99% get asylum
    1,000 Vietnamese: 71% get asylum"

    https://twitter.com/mckinneytweets/status/1496797427013140484?t=aQTovnjrb26nbTrVr-QbUQ&s=19
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,637
    Taz said:

    Quincel said:

    Taz said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Yep.

    Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
    Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.

    I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
    It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r?fbclid=IwAR0zjrlgHvj3AF5GS1EG0LXjWSQFZ2SPDL9AwPKUYZ3K1_54Z_ykoXtLhsk#part-1--transfer-arrangments
    Thanks Quincel.

    Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.

    Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.

    We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.

    We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
    All migrants need to be treated as genuine until otherwise surely? Like "everyone is innocent until proven guilty?"

    If the Home Office did their job properly and started processing quicker we wouldnt have as big a "problem".

    More legal routes would help a lot. I get the impression it was easier for Jews to leave Germany pre-war than it is for refugees to enter the UK now.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,889
    Kiss of death

    French election. 60/40 Macron.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,068
    RobD said:

    Taz said:

    Quincel said:

    Taz said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Yep.

    Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
    Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.

    I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
    It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r?fbclid=IwAR0zjrlgHvj3AF5GS1EG0LXjWSQFZ2SPDL9AwPKUYZ3K1_54Z_ykoXtLhsk#part-1--transfer-arrangments
    Thanks Quincel.

    Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.

    Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.

    We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.

    We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
    Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
    No. People can claim asylum in any country they choose. And we have relatively few refugees in the UK, far fewer than France or Germany or indeed most countries in Western Europe on a per capita basis.
    There is a global refugee crisis and we should be pulling our weight. It would be far better, obviously, if we had more effective official channels for refugees to come to the UK, so that people didn't feel compelled to make the dangerous channel crossing.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,010
    edited April 16
    Good thread on UK’s attitude to refugees & asylum seekers, and how the Rwanda wheeze is part of an ignoble tradition for a country with one of the lowest acceptance rates for asylum seekers in Europe. Particularly liked ‘Blunkettry’.

    https://twitter.com/alasdairmack66/status/1514925689379696640?s=21&t=qp32xpktbwJslALsZIkNkw
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983
    Roger said:

    Kiss of death

    French election. 60/40 Macron.

    Nail-biter nailed on....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,375
    HYUFD said:

    The poll shows how little voting nitention is shifting now. Taken in the last couple of days, after the Rwandan plan was announced and the Partygate fines, people have a view on both when asked but voting intention remains much the same. The basic Conservative problem is that the spread of tactical voting probably means that they need close to 40% to win this time. It doesn't look especially likely.

    The polling suggests Starmer will be PM yes. However it also suggests the Tories are still nowhere near a 1997 landslide defeat or even polling as low as Brown Labour pre 2010 or they were under May in Spring 2019
    Agreed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749
    dixiedean said:

    moonshine said:

    I believe I said something a couple of days ago about Putin potentially looking East for an easier gain, namely Kazakhstan…

    https://twitter.com/ericamarat/status/1515085010583314434?s=21&t=v_xDJP9RKO-wjPdjK4UZEg

    “Kazakhstan has now explained that the May 9 parade is not feasible because the priority is to maintain combat readiness of the armed forces to ensure protection and defense of gov and military facilities. Hands down, this is bold.

    Correct me if I’m wrong: Kazakhstan MoD has basically said that instead of celebrating Soviet Russian May 9 version of the V-day, they are instead preparing for a now plausible Russian “special operation” scenario on their territory“

    That sounds ominous.

    I said a while back that Kazakhstan should be congratulated in the long run for the stance they have taken on the war in Ukraine. I can imagine that Putin is really very, very angry with them. Given the cultural and economic ties between them and Russia, it cannot have been an easy decision.

    Though the question is what troops Putin can field to perform yet another 'special operation', especially if he does not declare war on Ukraine.

    This evil (*) Russian regime must be stopped now, because stopping it later will be even more costly.

    (*) I know some people grasp their handbags at my using their term. Again I ask them what they'd prefer me to use.
    It isn't "grasping handbags".
    It is merely an objection to the implication that certain persons are under the influence of mysterious outside malevolent forces.
    Thus downplaying Putin, and by extension, Russia, full agency in their moral choices.
    Evil doesn't exist. Horrendous choices do.
    I disagree. I am using it in the form of "profoundly immoral and wicked."

    Evil acts do exist. And I also disagree with "Horrendous choices do". A 'horrendous choice' might be whether I have my left leg chopped off or my right arm. They had a very easy choice: not to start the war. They chose to perform an evil act.

    Call a spade a spade. Putin's, and the Russian regime's, actions are evil. And repeatedly so.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,615

    Foxy said:

    felix said:
    The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.

    Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.

    If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.

    How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
    Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.

    The point of the policy is not for it to work, it is to pillory "lefy human rights lawyers" and "obstructive Whitehall red tape" it is to enable further authoritarianism.

    I suspect that no more than a token handful will be deported as intended.
    Talking of which, here's another interesting wrinkle:

    8. How Priti Patel and Vincent Biruta's trade in human beings is to work.

    - UK government to offer Rwanda lists of people.
    - Rwanda can say yes or no to any of those people offered to it by UK.
    - But the people transported to Rwanda (for cash) can not say yes or no to Rwanda

    https://t.co/Jt8jxwcVQK

    It looks like Rwanda saw the UK government coming.

    Given the poor odds of the Channel crossing, a small risk of being passed somewhere else isn't going to be a game changer, is it?
    Again, the issue wins the government votes. There is no intention for it to be a game changer, as that would cost the government votes in future. If the UK really wanted to do this we would withdraw from human rights treaties to make it legal, fund it with billions and apply it to all rather than a small test group, along with strict measures against employers acting illegally.

    We will do none of those things, the only logical conclusion is that the policy is designed to be blocked by the courts to further deepen the culture war and weaken the powers of the independent judiciary. Nothing to do with refugees at all.
This discussion has been closed.