Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the Number 10 tries to head off a rebellion on the immig
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the Number 10 tries to head off a rebellion on the immigration bill here’s the latest YouGov polling
YouGov polling showing a divide on immigration as an iissue between country and your family
pic.twitter.com/6Wx49HUE8n
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Immigration :83
Europe : 36
If the economy is going OK so you don't have to worry about The Country going bankrupt, all that's left is to either say immigration, if you think that's potentially diluting The Country's precious bodily fluids, or change the subject by talking about something like healthcare that concerns the people in the country instead, and hope the pollster won't notice.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth 10 mins
Why David Cameron and the Tory payroll vote are abstaining on the Raab amendment http://bit.ly/Ls5YH8
So man hats!!!
Even on issues facing the family, UKIP voters place immigration second (while it barely measures for Libe Dems - it'd be interesting to know how the dynamic runs there; my guess would be that people identify as Lib Dems because they're not bothered about immigration rather than the other way round).
Also notable from those figures that the three Westminster parties all have distinctive profile responses i.e. no two parties' supporters consistently list their answers the same, but that UKIP's are like the Tories on steroids i.e. whenever the Tories are top/bottom of the three, UKIP will is constantly out even further in the same direction.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/01/britain-not-booming-economy-still-smaller-it-was-six-years-ago
The left really have a cheek.
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2014/01/who-are-ukip-really/
"However, the Mills amendment’s loss of momentum and Douglas Carswell announcing that he’s done with rebelling does suggest that the Tory party might just be beginning to move back into line ahead of the election campaign. One of the rebels organising for the Mills amendment conceded to me yesterday that the recent good economic news and the narrowing in the polls has made it harder to persuade Tory MPs to vote against the government."
Looking at the things rated more important to people and their families than immigration, it strikes me that one can control ones finances, health arrangements, pension, housing, and kids education, but have no control over immigration & asylum and its affects. Thats what makes it an issue that causes NOTA's to get out and vote
Labour front bench says gut instinct to vote against Raab
"[UKIP] is fielding 1,818 council candidates"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/be6bfcee-88ea-11e3-bb5f-00144feab7de.html
US economy grew by 3.2% in Q4, official GDP figures show
Labour sources accuse PM of caving in to his backbenchers over europe following decision not to oppose rebel Raab motion on Immigration Bill
Now Labour has to flail around phoning Len McLuskey to decide how to vote on this amendment.
UKIP's are like the Tories on steroids
Having spent a lot of last year on steroids that's a great description. You get this amazing feeling of confidence - that you can do anything without being be able to appreciate the full situation. You get very agressive as was noticed by some on the site last year.
Coming off steroids is very hard and you have a planned phased reduction over a few weeks.
Labour refuse to say whether they will vote against rebel Raab ammendment or abstain
Tough one for labour. Nobody wants to be opposing making it easier to deport foreign criminals.
Not with 'the party of the working class' breathing down your neck
Life_ina_market_town said:
The move would certainly be illegal under EU "law", but EU law in the UK only has effect as a result of primary legislation (see s. 18 of the European Union Act 2011). Remember that Factortame did not involve a deliberate attempt to ignore EC law, indeed quite the reverse. Furthermore, the case explicitly endorsed the sovereignty of Parliament. If the amendments passed tonight, the courts in this jurisdiction would be obliged to give effect to the settled will of Parliament.
I said:
I don't agree. The legislation in Factortame was designed to prevent Spanish fishing boats buying up all of our quota for fish under the Common Fisheries policy at the time. It was effectively contrary to the EEC law on the right to establish businesses elsewhere in the EU because Spanish companies were setting up subsidiaries here to buy the quota and then landing the fish in Spain. It was struck down by the House of Lords on the instruction of the ECJ.
I do agree that that case made it clear that the UK Parliament remains sovereign to the extent that it is open to Parliament to repeal s2 of the ECA with the result that EU law would no longer be directly applicable. I find s18 a somewhat curious provision and it is not obvious to me what it actually adds to that proposition.
Because Parliament can repeal by implication the Courts would have to consider whether there was an intention to repeal s2 (and presumably s18) if there was primary legislation directly contrary to EU law. My understanding is that it has been made clear that that would have to be express, especially where it was quite obvious that we remained a part of the EU.
Without an express reference to the terms of s2 I do not think that the proposed amendment restricting the access rights of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants would be enforceable or binding on a UK Court. The court would simply infer that Parliament could not have intended to pass legislation that was contrary to EU law.
I think its a legal thing. Ministers cannot support measures that can be construed as 'illegal' under the current legal framework
There's bound to be a test case if the measures go through - and the ECHR could conceivably rule the UK law illegal.
Therefore ministers would have backed a measure that, in some ways, would make the UK a rogue government.
US economy grew by 1.9% in 2013, official figures show - in 2012 it was 2.8% http://bbc.in/LdBeZw
Fairly vacuous but totally standard. Loosely stolen from one of the debates in Trollope's Palliser novels, on disestablishment IIRC. Nothing's changed since then.
*innocent face*
Suggestions it's ERS. Unlike KERS, losing ERS will cost you a vast amount of lap time. It's circa tenfold the power of KERS.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2545738/Justin-Biebers-recent-antics-caused-growing-dependence-steroids-commonly-used-horses.html
As for Factortame, my point was that while the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was contrary to EC law, it was not intended to be. The argument can then be made that by passing the 1988 Act, Parliament didn't intend to stop community law having direct effect by virtue of s. 2 of the 1972 Act, and that an interim injunction could be granted against the enforcement of the provisions of the 1988 Act. The current amendments however are expressly intended to disapply EU law.
As for s. 18 of the 2011 Act, it is a dog's breakfast!
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/02/magazine/the-he-hormone.html
As for Factortame, my point was that while the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was contrary to EC law, it was not intended to be. The argument can then be made that by passing the 1988 Act, Parliament didn't intend to stop community law having direct effect by virtue of s. 2 of the 1972 Act, and that an interim injunction could be granted against the enforcement of the provisions of the 1988 Act. The current amendments however are expressly intended to disapply EU law.
As for s. 18 of the 2011 Act, it is a dog's breakfast!
On the last point we certainly agree!
I was not aware of the proposed amendment to the clause. I agree that meets the Factortame test.
I still think you are being a little generous to the motivations of those who promoted the 1988 Act though. They knew exactly what they were doing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25961514
Herding them must be fairly trying. Having to actually listen (heard) to their nonsense would surely be unbearable.
Basically all the charts say are
Things the State control (immigration, welfare) are more important to the country
Things I can control (family life, pension) are more important to me
When there is mutual control, the numbers seem to be roughly the same
Up to the highest height!
Let's go fly a kite and send it soaring
Up through the atmosphere
Up where the air is clear
Oh, let's go fly a kite!
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/27/how-tories-can-win-next-election/
Stephen, via text: If you want to close up the field and stop a run away winner then all drivers should carry their points at a rate of about 150g per point, which would mean those with less points would be lighter therefore go faster, also points for the fastest lap by a finisher in the top ten.
I wouldn't go for a fastest lap point, but weighted points could be interesting.
Policies matter less than might be the case. Consider Ed Balls and his 50p tax policy. Very popular. But after he made it the Labour lead narrowed.
Why? I'd guess it reminded the electorate of several things:
1) Labour buggered up the economy
2) Ed Balls is shadow chancellor
3) To paraphrase Will Smith in Men In Black, Ed Balls makes George Osborne look good
And consider the rise of UKIP. Lots of Bloom doorstepping (much less coverage of the action against Maajid Nawaz in the Lib Dems or regarding Rufus Hound's stupid comments) and knocking of UKIP, but the party remains very popular.
I wonder if an underlying feeling matters more than policies. Cameron comes across as an alright chap (in general). Ed Balls comes across as the kind of man space cannons are designed for. Farage is easily the winner of the pub test.
It would narrow odds in individual races, but these are competitors at the top of their tree - F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle, not even in horse racing are there weight handicaps in the very TOP races.
A non starter of an idea methinks.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/peter-hain-one-state-solution-israeli-palestinian-conflict-must-be-considered
George Eaton @georgeeaton 3 mins
Labour spokesperson tells me: "Peter Hain does not speak for Labour on foreign affairs...Labour is fully committed to a two-state solution".
Mr. Scout, the thing about the rubbish circuits is that the countries which host them tend to pay a lot (Monaco being the vast exception). It's so disappointing that the new circuits could've been fantastic but largely (Austin is a significant exception) they are not.
A bill to ban zero hours contracts to get its second reading on 28th February.
Needs a bit of work I think. As it stands the effect of s1(2) is that everyone who is on a qualifying zero hour contract is fired the moment the Bill came into force!
Nothing to do with currency unions.
Show me the climbdown....Show me the climbdown!
Show me the cave in.....Show me the cave in!
How do you think labour should handle this C2, looks like they could use any help they can get....
"Assuming a yes vote, will the rUk govt agree to a binding currency union by 2020 with fiscal transfers between the entities and shared credit risks ?" at 50/1 with bets refunded in event of a no vote then well I might have a dabble...
SaulLen..I've lost track of the politics now... is it considered more unacceptable to push for two states because that undermines Israeli's sovereignty, or for one state because that implies a criticism of Israel's illegal settlement building?
I guess that Labour can't be seen to go against the official US government view, but as Hain notes in his speech, there are already voices in the US acknowledging that a two-state solution will soon be impossible. So he'll probably be right in a couple of years time.
If Amanda Knox is found guilty and the US refuses to extradite her, it'll be interesting to see what happens the next time the Americans attempt to extradite a suspect from Italy.
Mr. Scout, please don't write such things. It's hard to resist the urge to plug my books when you do.
Yup, I think you are spot on, Mr. D., the overwhelming majority of voters don't know what policies are being put forward and would understand most of them if they did, but they do understand sentiment - they know how they feel.
"Cameron comes across as an alright chap (in general)."
That is probably because you live at 534ft above sea level and so suffer from long term hypoxia. To those of us with normal levels of oxygen and nutrients reaching our brains Cameron comes across as an unprincipled spiv, wholly unfit to hold a great office of state and completely incapable of leading a squad of ducklings across a fire bucket much less a great nation. I wouldn't cross the road to piss in his ear if his brain was on fire, except for the fact that there doesn't seem to be anyone better in any party.
Farage is a bon oeuf, but not I think a PM and Miliband "is the sort of chap we used to describe at school as an utter spastic"*.
*Quote from Rowan Atkinson.
Alexander would probably end up doing both.
Well it's one way of handling it I suppose.
That said, it's still artificial and would be better not done.
The Israelis gave up Gaza; I suspect in the end they will have to yield the West Bank, in toto. It will be a hard rightwinger who does it: a warrior like Sharon.
You're right this rule change is one we could do without. It's especially daft, given the enormous regulation changes this year, and the fact in 2/4 of the last years Vettel won only at the last race, and in the other 2 years he won a long, long time before that.
It's gimmicky, artificial and unnecessary.
What, like the incompetent fop Cammie is doing by abstaining?
LOL
The Eurosceptic rebels have Cammie on the run and they certainly won't stop now.
No amount of inept spin by CCHQ that this somehow suddenly isn't about Europe and immigration will ever hide that fact if he caves into them now by abstaining. Next it will be firm red lines and renegotiation terms as the Eurosceptic tory rebels have planned all along.
Not a great track record of Eurosceptics in the tory party suddenly being satisfied with Cast Iron Pledges and posturing, is there?
The only thing more stupid would be for Cameroonian spinners to try and mock little Ed if he thinks about doing the precise same thing Cammie is doing. How dumb would they look then?
Nice one mike ;-)