Howdy, Stranger!

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

Dealing with the small boats immigrants – the party divide – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 14 in General
imageDealing with the small boats immigrants – the party divide – politicalbetting.com

This polling shows quite a sharp divide between Tory voters and LAB/LD ones on what is increasingly becoming a big issue for the Tories as they try to turn the voting polls round. This might be a possible turnout driver for the Tories but that is about all. LAB and LD voters are much more opposed.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,392
    FPT

    Re Sue Gray. SKS gives a straight answer

    https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1632696313987964928

    The more he says "nothing improper happened" the more you know he's got something to hide.

    That said, nothing will come of this, this of the election as people just want rid of the Tories and aren't focusing much on who will replace them... But the warning signs are already flashing for when Starmer becomes PM...
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,478
    edited March 6
    First. (Well 2nd)

    I think it's right, but the Victorian solution would just be to sink the boats. Quite how not sensible that might be I'll need to think about.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 40,711
    Omnium said:

    First. (Well 2nd)

    I think it's right, but the Victorian solution would just be to sink the boats. Quite how not sensible that might be I'll need to think about.

    The Georgian solution would be to impress the boaters into the Royal Navy.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,478

    Omnium said:

    First. (Well 2nd)

    I think it's right, but the Victorian solution would just be to sink the boats. Quite how not sensible that might be I'll need to think about.

    The Georgian solution would be to impress the boaters into the Royal Navy.
    You may be on to something.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 48,385
    Think of how potential legitimate economic migrants might feel, to be treated not according to their qualifications or experience, but passed over in favour of those with the money to pay smugglers and risk their lives on a small boat.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 40,711
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    First. (Well 2nd)

    I think it's right, but the Victorian solution would just be to sink the boats. Quite how not sensible that might be I'll need to think about.

    The Georgian solution would be to impress the boaters into the Royal Navy.
    You may be on to something.
    We do have a manning shortage in the RN, and small boat skills are useful.

    Plus it’s a steady, fairly well paid job and certainly would protect refugees from whatever they are fleeing from.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,392
    And by the way 30% of Labour voters and 39% of Lib-Dem voters either somewhat or strongly support the policy.

    Not insignificant numbers...
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,361
    The problem with Rwanda is that it needs to be humane enough to be accepted in Britain but inhumane enough to deter migrants. I suspect such a sweet spot does not exist.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,100
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT

    Re Sue Gray. SKS gives a straight answer

    https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1632696313987964928

    The more he says "nothing improper happened" the more you know he's got something to hide.

    That said, nothing will come of this, this of the election as people just want rid of the Tories and aren't focusing much on who will replace them... But the warning signs are already flashing for when Starmer becomes PM...
    Has he booked a Sheffield rally yet? 😀😭🤣😂
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 11,177
    GIN1138 said:

    And by the way 30% of Labour voters and 39% of Lib-Dem voters either somewhat or strongly support the policy.

    Not insignificant numbers...

    You questioning Mike has read this polling correctly, and it really does support his take on it?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,392

    GIN1138 said:

    And by the way 30% of Labour voters and 39% of Lib-Dem voters either somewhat or strongly support the policy.

    Not insignificant numbers...

    You questioning Mike has read this polling correctly, and it really does support his take on it?
    As if I would question OGH 😇
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,478

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    First. (Well 2nd)

    I think it's right, but the Victorian solution would just be to sink the boats. Quite how not sensible that might be I'll need to think about.

    The Georgian solution would be to impress the boaters into the Royal Navy.
    You may be on to something.
    We do have a manning shortage in the RN, and small boat skills are useful.

    Plus it’s a steady, fairly well paid job and certainly would protect refugees from whatever they are fleeing from.
    I'm sold!

    (Anecdote: when I was in my late teens I was in the school CCF. The RAF element. We used to go on these 'camps' to various RAF airfields. (Lynham, Cosford I recall, but there would have been others). We as schoolkids were sometimes stuck in accomodation beyond awful - no functioning toilets for example.)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,294
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT

    Re Sue Gray. SKS gives a straight answer

    https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1632696313987964928

    The more he says "nothing improper happened" the more you know he's got something to hide.

    That said, nothing will come of this, this of the election as people just want rid of the Tories and aren't focusing much on who will replace them... But the warning signs are already flashing for when Starmer becomes PM...
    Labour want you to forget that Starmer was a lawyer....
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 23,978

    The problem with Rwanda is that it needs to be humane enough to be accepted in Britain but inhumane enough to deter migrants. I suspect such a sweet spot does not exist.

    It has nothing to do with being inhumane - the fact that it's not the UK is enough to deter migrants who want to get to the UK for whatever reason. The economical opportunities, for work, state benefits, or crime, cannot be compared.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 115,031
    The Conservatives don't need to win 2019 Labour or LD voters, they need to win back voters who voted Conservative in 2019, 74% of whom in the above poll support preventing migrants in small boats from setting in the UK
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 57,439
    edited March 6
    I suspect that this might prove another of those 'simple' policy ideas which prove anything but, when put into practice.
    Until such time, the polling is fairly meaningless.
  • pingping Posts: 3,723
    edited March 6

    The problem with Rwanda is that it needs to be humane enough to be accepted in Britain but inhumane enough to deter migrants. I suspect such a sweet spot does not exist.

    Very astute post.

    The fundamental problem is post-brexit, we need to enforce an actual border, but the tories don’t want taxpayers to pay for it.

    Doing it properly is expensive.

    Using fear is their least unpalatable option.

    These right wingers have no morality. Only interests.

    Rwanda boils down to an accounting decision.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Nigelb said:

    I suspect that this might prove another of those 'simple' policy ideas which prove anything but, when put into practice.
    Until such time, the polling is fairly meaningless.

    It reminds me of the bit in YPM where Hacker was trying to look as if he was trying to do something about unemployment.

    If they suceed in actually looking as if they're trying to do something about the boats then they might get a bit of credit.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 9,157
    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    Another interesting question related to this dismal survey is this.
    Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 11,177
    edited March 6
    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s same old “deterrent thinking” out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 12,700
    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    I suspect that this might prove another of those 'simple' policy ideas which prove anything but, when put into practice.
    Until such time, the polling is fairly meaningless.

    It reminds me of the bit in YPM where Hacker was trying to look as if he was trying to do something about unemployment.

    If they suceed in actually looking as if they're trying to do something about the boats then they might get a bit of credit.
    Or if they look as if they are trying to look as if they are trying to do something.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 57,439
    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    I suspect that this might prove another of those 'simple' policy ideas which prove anything but, when put into practice.
    Until such time, the polling is fairly meaningless.

    It reminds me of the bit in YPM where Hacker was trying to look as if he was trying to do something about unemployment.

    If they suceed in actually looking as if they're trying to do something about the boats then they might get a bit of credit.
    If they'd announced this crap six months before the next election, it would probably have served that purpose.
    See also the largely confected outrage about the proposed Sue Gray appointment.

    Seems only a couple of days since I was giving Sunak credit for being one of the grownups.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 11,177
    algarkirk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    Another interesting question related to this dismal survey is this.
    Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?

    See! Algykirk has blundered straight into the trap

    [whiny noise] but do you think it’s actually deters? Do you think it actually works?

    Wise up Algy 😇
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 57,439
    I won't link to the actual video.
    Though warning, it appears to be in the comments below this post.

    Horrific video of an unarmed Ukrainian POW executed by Russian forces merely for saying "Glory to Ukraine". Another proof this war is genocidal. It is imperative that
    @KarimKhanQC launches an immediate ICC investigation into this heinous war crime. Perpetrators must face justice.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1632774922136170497
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,327
    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    I suspect that this might prove another of those 'simple' policy ideas which prove anything but, when put into practice.
    Until such time, the polling is fairly meaningless.

    It reminds me of the bit in YPM where Hacker was trying to look as if he was trying to do something about unemployment.

    If they suceed in actually looking as if they're trying to do something about the boats then they might get a bit of credit.
    If they'd announced this crap six months before the next election, it would probably have served that purpose.
    See also the largely confected outrage about the proposed Sue Gray appointment.

    Seems only a couple of days since I was giving Sunak credit for being one of the grownups.
    Indeed, after a week of sensible governing, we appear to be back to the normal policy diarrhoea we have become used to with this troupe of clowns. Just spit out something to do with immigrants, curry or civil servants and hope desperately that something will stick.

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,327

    algarkirk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    Another interesting question related to this dismal survey is this.
    Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?

    See! Algykirk has blundered straight into the trap

    [whiny noise] but do you think it’s actually deters? Do you think it actually works?

    Wise up Algy 😇
    Do you think the public won’t notice in a few weeks / months if the illegal immigration numbers are unaffected?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 115,031
    edited March 6

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP
  • TimSTimS Posts: 7,460
    edited March 6
    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    I suspect that this might prove another of those 'simple' policy ideas which prove anything but, when put into practice.
    Until such time, the polling is fairly meaningless.

    It reminds me of the bit in YPM where Hacker was trying to look as if he was trying to do something about unemployment.

    If they suceed in actually looking as if they're trying to do something about the boats then they might get a bit of credit.
    If they'd announced this crap six months before the next election, it would probably have served that purpose.
    See also the largely confected outrage about the proposed Sue Gray appointment.

    Seems only a couple of days since I was giving Sunak credit for being one of the grownups.
    The Sue Grey outrage is so obviously confected. Nevermind that if (when) the Tories did something exactly the same nobody would bat an eyelid (only this morning Boris was in the news nominating his dad for a gong), the fact is none of the Johnson supporters actually believe her report was biased or compromised. They just sniffed an opportunity to do a bit of Trumping around big dog. I notice Sunak is remaining studiously silent on the whole thing.
  • pingping Posts: 3,723
    edited March 6
    Lol. The Times engages in a little guerrilla marketing;



    Musk’s ideology is in direct conflict with his interests.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 9,157

    algarkirk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    Another interesting question related to this dismal survey is this.
    Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?

    See! Algykirk has blundered straight into the trap

    [whiny noise] but do you think it’s actually deters? Do you think it actually works?

    Wise up Algy 😇
    Fair point, of course, though how successful this dismal tactic is may depend on how often it has been used before (seems to be trending towards infinity times), and also must be balanced by the Tory problem that the votes they have lost include the ones they lose because of trashy populism and the attractions of boring, international law abiding, SKS centrism. Possibly the Tories need some of them back too.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,327
    edited March 6
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender conversion therapy and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.




    The average voter is more socially conservative


    than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP
    By Moonbat’s twisted logic, all politicians have to do is SAY they are going to renationalise the utilities and railways then leave them exactly as they are. Job done, apparently. Joe Public will never notice that nothing has changed.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 12,700

    algarkirk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    Another interesting question related to this dismal survey is this.
    Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?

    See! Algykirk has blundered straight into the trap

    [whiny noise] but do you think it’s actually deters? Do you think it actually works?

    Wise up Algy 😇
    That's fine if there's an election in the next six months, but nobody is expecting that.

    So what's quite likely to happen is:
    1 Sunak spends time saying Stopping The Boats Is Really Important.
    2 The boats don't stop.
    3 Sunak looks like a ninny.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 31,654

    So what's quite likely to happen is:
    1 Sunak spends time saying Stopping The Boats Is Really Important.
    2 The boats don't stop.
    3 Sunak looks like a ninny.

    ...
  • TimSTimS Posts: 7,460
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP
    The recent yougov study showing that how a question is framed makes a huge difference to the answer is pertinent here.

    The average voter would also slash taxes while agreeing the rich should pay their fair share, would spend more while agreeing that it's important to bring down public debt, and would agree the planning system is too restrictive on development while being adamant that nothing should ever be developed within a few miles of where they live.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 37,393
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP
    Don't you more mean those are all popular positions? For it to map to 'average voter' there'd have to be a high confluence of them in individual people - ie take a person at random and it's likely they support all or nearly all of them. Is this the case?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,281

    The problem with Rwanda is that it needs to be humane enough to be accepted in Britain but inhumane enough to deter migrants. I suspect such a sweet spot does not exist.

    France?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 58,926
    edited March 6
    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    I suspect that this might prove another of those 'simple' policy ideas which prove anything but, when put into practice.
    Until such time, the polling is fairly meaningless.

    It reminds me of the bit in YPM where Hacker was trying to look as if he was trying to do something about unemployment.

    If they suceed in actually looking as if they're trying to do something about the boats then they might get a bit of credit.
    If they'd announced this crap six months before the next election, it would probably have served that purpose.
    See also the largely confected outrage about the proposed Sue Gray appointment.

    Seems only a couple of days since I was giving Sunak credit for being one of the grownups.
    The Sue Grey outrage is so obviously confected. Nevermind that if (when) the Tories did something exactly the same nobody would bat an eyelid (only this morning Boris was in the news nominating his dad for a gong), the fact is none of the Johnson supported actually believe her report was biased or compromised. They just sniffed an opportunity to do a bit of Trumping around big dog. I notice Sunak is remaining studiously silent on the whole thing.
    It is Sue Gray but you are conflating two issues

    The vast majority of conservatives accept her report as fair and unbiased and Johnson’s attempt to suggest otherwise is disgraceful

    The reason Sue Gray is now headline news is that she accepted a position in Labour without informing the civil service, contrary to their rules which are there to ensure impartially of the civil service

    There has been an urgent question debate just now and the cabinet office confirmed the rules and an investigation is taking place into when she met Starmer with times dates and attendees

    The cabinet minister said it is simply needs Starmer to publish this information which to date he has refused to do so

    Mps in the debate said he had refused 10 times today and he needs to have a response as it will come out anyway
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,275
    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    I suspect that this might prove another of those 'simple' policy ideas which prove anything but, when put into practice.
    Until such time, the polling is fairly meaningless.

    It reminds me of the bit in YPM where Hacker was trying to look as if he was trying to do something about unemployment.

    If they suceed in actually looking as if they're trying to do something about the boats then they might get a bit of credit.
    If they'd announced this crap six months before the next election, it would probably have served that purpose.
    See also the largely confected outrage about the proposed Sue Gray appointment.

    Seems only a couple of days since I was giving Sunak credit for being one of the grownups.
    The Sue Grey outrage is so obviously confected. Nevermind that if (when) the Tories did something exactly the same nobody would bat an eyelid (only this morning Boris was in the news nominating his dad for a gong), the fact is none of the Johnson supporters actually believe her report was biased or compromised. They just sniffed an opportunity to do a bit of Trumping around big dog. I notice Sunak is remaining studiously silent on the whole thing.
    Why did SKS not just provide a simple answer this morning then? It does seem an unforced error. He should just sit back and let the tories infight rather than sound very evasive on the radio.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 16,484
    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    DougSeal said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.

    A two state solution is not racist.

    Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
    Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
    "Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
    Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
    Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
    LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.

    Welcome the analysis.
    Good way to lose an argument.

    "Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
    I think Alexei is spot on

    “It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
    Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?

    These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
    There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
    The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.

    If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?

    Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
    By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
    Better still, separate the Israeli Government from Israelis and Jewish people both.
    Yes. The government is not the country. Thank god (2016/22).
    It is increasingly the case though that the Israeli population is becoming hard right, due to reduced liberal American Jewish immigration and divergent birth rates.
    Well in a democracy you don't get a hard right racist government by pure accident. But there's lots of internal opposition to it - and also external (amongst jews) opposition to it. So you do have to separate the policies and rhetoric of the Israeli government from jewish people, both as a whole and individually. Otherwise you'll fall into antisemitism, it's just a matter of to what degree. A respectable position (imo) is to support Israel's right to prosper in peace, now and forever, and at the same time recognize that the crimes being perpetrated (by it) against the Palestinians need to stop for this to happen.
    Wow, what a remarkable and nasty piece of victim blaming. Do women have to stop wearing short skirts in order to not get raped too in your eyes?

    A respectable position is to support Israels right to prosper in peace, now and forever. No ifs, no buts and no equivocation.

    A respectable position is also that a new state called Palestine should be created from some of the land that Egypt and Jordan ceded when they tried to wipe out Israel in 1967.

    What proportion of the land that Egypt and Jordan ceded becomes a new state called Palestine, and what proportion becomes part of Israel's territory needs to be negotiated. But those negotiations do not impede Israels right to peaceful existence, a peaceful existence that if it had been respected would mean that land would still be Egyptian and Jordanian.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 115,031
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP
    Don't you more mean those are all popular positions? For it to map to 'average voter' there'd have to be a high confluence of them in individual people - ie take a person at random and it's likely they support all or nearly all of them. Is this the case?
    The median voter then
  • TimSTimS Posts: 7,460

    algarkirk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    Another interesting question related to this dismal survey is this.
    Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?

    See! Algykirk has blundered straight into the trap

    [whiny noise] but do you think it’s actually deters? Do you think it actually works?

    Wise up Algy 😇
    That's fine if there's an election in the next six months, but nobody is expecting that.

    So what's quite likely to happen is:
    1 Sunak spends time saying Stopping The Boats Is Really Important.
    2 The boats don't stop.
    3 Sunak looks like a ninny.
    Or, and this is why migration is always a silly thing to try to politicise,

    2. he does a reasonable deal with the French and the boats stop or reduce significantly
    3. By 2024 everyone's forgotten about it or there's a new route they're all getting worked up about

    I actually think something will be done, but it won't be Rwanda that sorts it.
  • eekeek Posts: 23,831

    algarkirk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    Another interesting question related to this dismal survey is this.
    Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?

    See! Algykirk has blundered straight into the trap

    [whiny noise] but do you think it’s actually deters? Do you think it actually works?

    Wise up Algy 😇
    That's fine if there's an election in the next six months, but nobody is expecting that.

    So what's quite likely to happen is:
    1 Sunak spends time saying Stopping The Boats Is Really Important.
    2 The boats don't stop.
    3 Sunak looks like a ninny.
    Something has to be done to try and stop the boats - simply because of the risks that come from taking an unsuitable dinghy across 20 odd miles of open sea.

    Now it's very likely that it won't solve anything but being honest removing any incentive is literally the only option left to try and stop people attempting the journey.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 52,513
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP
    How much gender reassignment surgery is done by people who aren't doctors?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 7,460

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    I suspect that this might prove another of those 'simple' policy ideas which prove anything but, when put into practice.
    Until such time, the polling is fairly meaningless.

    It reminds me of the bit in YPM where Hacker was trying to look as if he was trying to do something about unemployment.

    If they suceed in actually looking as if they're trying to do something about the boats then they might get a bit of credit.
    If they'd announced this crap six months before the next election, it would probably have served that purpose.
    See also the largely confected outrage about the proposed Sue Gray appointment.

    Seems only a couple of days since I was giving Sunak credit for being one of the grownups.
    The Sue Grey outrage is so obviously confected. Nevermind that if (when) the Tories did something exactly the same nobody would bat an eyelid (only this morning Boris was in the news nominating his dad for a gong), the fact is none of the Johnson supporters actually believe her report was biased or compromised. They just sniffed an opportunity to do a bit of Trumping around big dog. I notice Sunak is remaining studiously silent on the whole thing.
    Why did SKS not just provide a simple answer this morning then? It does seem an unforced error. He should just sit back and let the tories infight rather than sound very evasive on the radio.
    I expect he probably did start talking to her earlier, if reports are true that she was pissed off by a lack of promotion opportunities. She seems a pretty good hire by all accounts. I agree he should just be more straightforward about it - brazen even, like his opponents.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 36,871
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP
    How much gender reassignment surgery is done by people who aren't doctors?
    Wayne Bobbitt? ;)
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 12,700
    Broken sleazy Labour on a very minor slide;

    Westminster VI (5 March):

    Labour 50% (-1)
    Conservative 24% (–)
    Liberal Democrat 9% (–)
    Reform UK 7% (–)
    Green 5% (–)
    Scottish National Party 3% (–)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 26 February

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1632788137918316553
  • The problem is, Rishi's policies violate human rights law.

    At the end of the day, these are still human beings.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 111,787

    Broken sleazy Labour on a very minor slide;

    Westminster VI (5 March):

    Labour 50% (-1)
    Conservative 24% (–)
    Liberal Democrat 9% (–)
    Reform UK 7% (–)
    Green 5% (–)
    Scottish National Party 3% (–)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 26 February

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1632788137918316553

    Graygate is shifting the polls.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,504

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    DougSeal said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.

    A two state solution is not racist.

    Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
    Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
    "Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
    Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
    Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
    LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.

    Welcome the analysis.
    Good way to lose an argument.

    "Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
    I think Alexei is spot on

    “It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
    Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?

    These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
    There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
    The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.

    If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?

    Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
    By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
    Better still, separate the Israeli Government from Israelis and Jewish people both.
    Yes. The government is not the country. Thank god (2016/22).
    It is increasingly the case though that the Israeli population is becoming hard right, due to reduced liberal American Jewish immigration and divergent birth rates.
    Well in a democracy you don't get a hard right racist government by pure accident. But there's lots of internal opposition to it - and also external (amongst jews) opposition to it. So you do have to separate the policies and rhetoric of the Israeli government from jewish people, both as a whole and individually. Otherwise you'll fall into antisemitism, it's just a matter of to what degree. A respectable position (imo) is to support Israel's right to prosper in peace, now and forever, and at the same time recognize that the crimes being perpetrated (by it) against the Palestinians need to stop for this to happen.
    Wow, what a remarkable and nasty piece of victim blaming. Do women have to stop wearing short skirts in order to not get raped too in your eyes?

    A respectable position is to support Israels right to prosper in peace, now and forever. No ifs, no buts and no equivocation.

    A respectable position is also that a new state called Palestine should be created from some of the land that Egypt and Jordan ceded when they tried to wipe out Israel in 1967.

    What proportion of the land that Egypt and Jordan ceded becomes a new state called Palestine, and what proportion becomes part of Israel's territory needs to be negotiated. But those negotiations do not impede Israels right to peaceful existence, a peaceful existence that if it had been respected would mean that land would still be Egyptian and Jordanian.
    It is not victim blaming. The Israelis are not the victims these days. That is like saying someone who was assaulted as a teenager has carte blanche to assault others when they reach middle age. Israel needs to stop perpetuating violence, stop stealing land in breach of UN agreements and stop playing the victim as an excuse to do harm to others.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,199
    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    Another interesting question related to this dismal survey is this.
    Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?

    See! Algykirk has blundered straight into the trap

    [whiny noise] but do you think it’s actually deters? Do you think it actually works?

    Wise up Algy 😇
    That's fine if there's an election in the next six months, but nobody is expecting that.

    So what's quite likely to happen is:
    1 Sunak spends time saying Stopping The Boats Is Really Important.
    2 The boats don't stop.
    3 Sunak looks like a ninny.
    Something has to be done to try and stop the boats - simply because of the risks that come from taking an unsuitable dinghy across 20 odd miles of open sea.

    Now it's very likely that it won't solve anything but being honest removing any incentive is literally the only option left to try and stop people attempting the journey.
    How about providing a route by processing in France, then providing a ferry ticket?
  • No evidence of a Rishi bounce, because people are sick of Brexit and do not believe he can solve any of the problems facing the UK. "Time for a change."
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 16,484
    According to the poll 39% of LD voters somewhat or strongly support the Government's policy.

    That's not inconsequential is it?

    Seems from the percentages that the LDs (39% support) and Labour (30% support) have more to lose by opposing the policy than the Tories do (18% oppose).
  • Are people still suggesting the Palestinian state is racist?

    The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,721
    HYUFD said:

    The Conservatives don't need to win 2019 Labour or LD voters, they need to win back voters who voted Conservative in 2019, 74% of whom in the above poll support preventing migrants in small boats from setting in the UK

    It is a reasonable concern if migrants in small boats start settling all over the place. I mean caravans are bad enough!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 36,871

    Are people still suggesting the Palestinian state is racist?

    The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.

    Both can be true...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,597
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP

    The average voter doesn't have two arms or legs.

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 16,484
    edited March 6

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    DougSeal said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.

    A two state solution is not racist.

    Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
    Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
    "Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
    Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
    Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
    LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.

    Welcome the analysis.
    Good way to lose an argument.

    "Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
    I think Alexei is spot on

    “It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
    Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?

    These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
    There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
    The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.

    If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?

    Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
    By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
    Better still, separate the Israeli Government from Israelis and Jewish people both.
    Yes. The government is not the country. Thank god (2016/22).
    It is increasingly the case though that the Israeli population is becoming hard right, due to reduced liberal American Jewish immigration and divergent birth rates.
    Well in a democracy you don't get a hard right racist government by pure accident. But there's lots of internal opposition to it - and also external (amongst jews) opposition to it. So you do have to separate the policies and rhetoric of the Israeli government from jewish people, both as a whole and individually. Otherwise you'll fall into antisemitism, it's just a matter of to what degree. A respectable position (imo) is to support Israel's right to prosper in peace, now and forever, and at the same time recognize that the crimes being perpetrated (by it) against the Palestinians need to stop for this to happen.
    Wow, what a remarkable and nasty piece of victim blaming. Do women have to stop wearing short skirts in order to not get raped too in your eyes?

    A respectable position is to support Israels right to prosper in peace, now and forever. No ifs, no buts and no equivocation.

    A respectable position is also that a new state called Palestine should be created from some of the land that Egypt and Jordan ceded when they tried to wipe out Israel in 1967.

    What proportion of the land that Egypt and Jordan ceded becomes a new state called Palestine, and what proportion becomes part of Israel's territory needs to be negotiated. But those negotiations do not impede Israels right to peaceful existence, a peaceful existence that if it had been respected would mean that land would still be Egyptian and Jordanian.
    It is not victim blaming. The Israelis are not the victims these days. That is like saying someone who was assaulted as a teenager has carte blanche to assault others when they reach middle age. Israel needs to stop perpetuating violence, stop stealing land in breach of UN agreements and stop playing the victim as an excuse to do harm to others.
    What land is Israel stealing? They never invaded a state called Palestine, nor are they invading any land today.

    Germany lost land in its war of aggression, some formerly German land is now in Poland and other states. Germany won't get that land back. Poland is perfectly entitled to develop the land that it has now.

    Egypt and Jordan lost land in their war of aggression, they won't get it back. Israel is perfectly entitled to develop the land it has now, just as Poland is.

    A new state called Palestine should be created, but one does not yet exist and it does not yet have defined borders.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 115,031
    edited March 6

    The problem is, Rishi's policies violate human rights law.

    At the end of the day, these are still human beings.

    Do they? Compared to what Meloni and Salvini's Italy is doing to stop migrants boats, Sunak's policy is relatively moderate
  • TimSTimS Posts: 7,460
    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    Another interesting question related to this dismal survey is this.
    Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?

    See! Algykirk has blundered straight into the trap

    [whiny noise] but do you think it’s actually deters? Do you think it actually works?

    Wise up Algy 😇
    That's fine if there's an election in the next six months, but nobody is expecting that.

    So what's quite likely to happen is:
    1 Sunak spends time saying Stopping The Boats Is Really Important.
    2 The boats don't stop.
    3 Sunak looks like a ninny.
    Something has to be done to try and stop the boats - simply because of the risks that come from taking an unsuitable dinghy across 20 odd miles of open sea.

    Now it's very likely that it won't solve anything but being honest removing any incentive is literally the only option left to try and stop people attempting the journey.
    It's not the only option left to try though. Plenty have been left unexplored:

    - Legal routes to application and asylum, either in the source country, close to the source country (e.g. Turkey) or in France. If we want refugees to be able to integrate into the country they end up then it makes sense to allow for people to come to the UK rather than say France if they have relatives here or speak English as a mother tongue
    - Significantly ramping up enforcement on the French side of the border which means, of course, paying much more money to France to help. But way cheaper than paying Rwanda for a handful of flights
    - Proper investment into breaking the trafficking gangs, on a cross border basis.

    We could of course join Schengen and then small boats would disappear because refugees could jump on a ferry and claim asylum in Dover, or better still jump on a train and apply at St Pancras. The total numbers of applicants would of course rise, but we have a countrywide labour shortage across multiple industries and demographic decline is one of the biggest challenges facing our ageing population. And the fact is there would be no more of those [heart wrenching / infuriating - replace according to your political viewpoint] pictures of families coming ashore on flimsy dinghies on the South coast.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 7,460

    Broken sleazy Labour on a very minor slide;

    Westminster VI (5 March):

    Labour 50% (-1)
    Conservative 24% (–)
    Liberal Democrat 9% (–)
    Reform UK 7% (–)
    Green 5% (–)
    Scottish National Party 3% (–)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 26 February

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1632788137918316553

    Surge for the rounding party.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 115,031
    edited March 6

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP

    The average voter doesn't have two arms or legs.

    They do and they tend to live in places like Colchester, Nuneaton, Southampton, Harlow, Dover, Corby, Wrexham and Bolton where those views are common
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 16,484

    Are people still suggesting the Palestinian state is racist?

    The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.

    There is no Palestinian state. There never has been since Egypt and Jordan annexed what was supposed to be Palestine in 1948.

    Hamas which denies Israels right to exist absolutely is racist.

    A Palestinian state should be created from a proportion of the land Egypt and Jordan ceded in 1967 but that proportion needs to be negotiated. Until then, none yet exists and no defined border exists.
  • HYUFD said:

    The problem is, Rishi's policies violate human rights law.

    At the end of the day, these are still human beings.

    Do they? Compared to what Meloni and Salvini's Italy is doing to stop migrants boats, Sunak's policy is relatively moderate
    This is not the win you think it is.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,597
    On topic - I think that if Sunak accompanies draconian legislation with genuine, clearly signposted and fully-functional safe routes to entry, while providing more funding to crime prevention so the police and other enforcement services can fight the problem of the trafficking gangs at root, then it will be hard for Labour to oppose. But the problem with doing this, from a Tory perspective, is that it will mean the UK taking a fair few asylum seekers who might otherwise have crossed on the small boats - and that will infuriate the right.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 57,439
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP
    How much gender reassignment surgery is done by people who aren't doctors?
    Don't bring your daft practicalities into this debate....
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 12,700
    TimS said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    Another interesting question related to this dismal survey is this.
    Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?

    See! Algykirk has blundered straight into the trap

    [whiny noise] but do you think it’s actually deters? Do you think it actually works?

    Wise up Algy 😇
    That's fine if there's an election in the next six months, but nobody is expecting that.

    So what's quite likely to happen is:
    1 Sunak spends time saying Stopping The Boats Is Really Important.
    2 The boats don't stop.
    3 Sunak looks like a ninny.
    Something has to be done to try and stop the boats - simply because of the risks that come from taking an unsuitable dinghy across 20 odd miles of open sea.

    Now it's very likely that it won't solve anything but being honest removing any incentive is literally the only option left to try and stop people attempting the journey.
    It's not the only option left to try though. Plenty have been left unexplored:

    - Legal routes to application and asylum, either in the source country, close to the source country (e.g. Turkey) or in France. If we want refugees to be able to integrate into the country they end up then it makes sense to allow for people to come to the UK rather than say France if they have relatives here or speak English as a mother tongue
    - Significantly ramping up enforcement on the French side of the border which means, of course, paying much more money to France to help. But way cheaper than paying Rwanda for a handful of flights
    - Proper investment into breaking the trafficking gangs, on a cross border basis.

    We could of course join Schengen and then small boats would disappear because refugees could jump on a ferry and claim asylum in Dover, or better still jump on a train and apply at St Pancras. The total numbers of applicants would of course rise, but we have a countrywide labour shortage across multiple industries and demographic decline is one of the biggest challenges facing our ageing population. And the fact is there would be no more of those [heart wrenching / infuriating - replace according to your political viewpoint] pictures of families coming ashore on flimsy dinghies on the South coast.
    And that, ultimately, is the problem. The UK does want to stop the small boats. But not enough that it would cost us, either by improving the policing or letting more people in.

    Much cheaper to just shout a lot.
  • Are people still suggesting the Palestinian state is racist?

    The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.

    There is no Palestinian state. There never has been since Egypt and Jordan annexed what was supposed to be Palestine in 1948.

    Hamas which denies Israels right to exist absolutely is racist.

    A Palestinian state should be created from a proportion of the land Egypt and Jordan ceded in 1967 but that proportion needs to be negotiated. Until then, none yet exists and no defined border exists.
    The current Israeli state is racist and pursues racist policies. Your inability to admit that undermines any point you have.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,597
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP

    The average voter doesn't have two arms or legs.

    They do and they tend to live in places like Colchester, Nuneaton, Southampton, Harlow, Dover, Corby, Wrexham and Bolton where those views are common

    No, they don't. That's why talking about average voters is so foolish.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 25,767
    Sunak's basic problem is delivery. They have endlessly promised they will fix this issue and instead it gets worse. Now they are making yet another rash promise they cannot deliver. Instead of it being the wedge issue to infuriate their remaining voters, it only serves to remind them that (a) they have done nothing so far and (b) they don't have a solution now.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 19,586
    HYUFD said:

    The Conservatives don't need to win 2019 Labour or LD voters, they need to win back voters who voted Conservative in 2019, 74% of whom in the above poll support preventing migrants in small boats from setting in the UK

    Precisely. This is a policy aimed at the Red Wall, not North London hand-wringers.

    Labour needs to tread carefully.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 57,439
    Population pyramids are interesting (compare India, China and Africa, for instance).
    But is there a weirder one than Saudi Arabis ?
    https://www.populationpyramid.net/saudi-arabia/2022/
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,327

    Broken sleazy Labour on a very minor slide;

    Westminster VI (5 March):

    Labour 50% (-1)
    Conservative 24% (–)
    Liberal Democrat 9% (–)
    Reform UK 7% (–)
    Green 5% (–)
    Scottish National Party 3% (–)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 26 February

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1632788137918316553

    Graygate is shifting the polls.
    :D
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 46,262
    edited March 6

    Are people still suggesting the Palestinian state is racist?

    The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.

    There is no Palestinian state. There never has been since Egypt and Jordan annexed what was supposed to be Palestine in 1948.

    Hamas which denies Israels right to exist absolutely is racist.

    A Palestinian state should be created from a proportion of the land Egypt and Jordan ceded in 1967 but that proportion needs to be negotiated. Until then, none yet exists and no defined border exists.
    The current Israeli state is racist and pursues racist policies. Your inability to admit that undermines any point you have.
    Is your view not that the Israeli state is inherently racist in its conception?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 19,348

    Sunak's basic problem is delivery. They have endlessly promised they will fix this issue and instead it gets worse. Now they are making yet another rash promise they cannot deliver. Instead of it being the wedge issue to infuriate their remaining voters, it only serves to remind them that (a) they have done nothing so far and (b) they don't have a solution now.

    Nah, it will be blocked by the courts. Failure to deliver will be blamed on liberals. And believed by the gullible.
  • HYUFD said:

    The Conservatives don't need to win 2019 Labour or LD voters, they need to win back voters who voted Conservative in 2019, 74% of whom in the above poll support preventing migrants in small boats from setting in the UK

    Precisely. This is a policy aimed at the Red Wall, not North London hand-wringers.

    Labour needs to tread carefully.
    Yes but how about policies that actually work? That is the problem with the Tories now, nothing they are suggesting will actually help.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 115,031
    edited March 6

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP

    The average voter doesn't have two arms or legs.

    They do and they tend to live in places like Colchester, Nuneaton, Southampton, Harlow, Dover, Corby, Wrexham and Bolton where those views are common

    No, they don't. That's why talking about average voters is so foolish.

    They do, it is the median voter who decides elections ie typically a voter who voted Labour from 1997 to 2010 and has voted Conservative since and they tend to live in places of average wealth and earnings like that.

    They also as stated tended to be more socially conservative than most MPs but economically slightly more centre left
  • Sunak's basic problem is delivery. They have endlessly promised they will fix this issue and instead it gets worse. Now they are making yet another rash promise they cannot deliver. Instead of it being the wedge issue to infuriate their remaining voters, it only serves to remind them that (a) they have done nothing so far and (b) they don't have a solution now.

    Nah, it will be blocked by the courts. Failure to deliver will be blamed on liberals. And believed by the gullible.
    Exactly.

    But the problem is that as a country there are just certain things we should be good enough not to do.

    We shouldn't eliminate human rights, we shouldn't treat people like cattle.
  • Are people still suggesting the Palestinian state is racist?

    The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.

    There is no Palestinian state. There never has been since Egypt and Jordan annexed what was supposed to be Palestine in 1948.

    Hamas which denies Israels right to exist absolutely is racist.

    A Palestinian state should be created from a proportion of the land Egypt and Jordan ceded in 1967 but that proportion needs to be negotiated. Until then, none yet exists and no defined border exists.
    The current Israeli state is racist and pursues racist policies. Your inability to admit that undermines any point you have.
    Is your view not that the Israeli state is inherently racist in its conception?
    Never said that.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,721

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT

    Re Sue Gray. SKS gives a straight answer

    https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1632696313987964928

    The more he says "nothing improper happened" the more you know he's got something to hide.

    That said, nothing will come of this, this of the election as people just want rid of the Tories and aren't focusing much on who will replace them... But the warning signs are already flashing for when Starmer becomes PM...
    Labour want you to forget that Starmer was a lawyer....
    I am not sure why they should. Many might think that it would make a change to have a professional person in charge who understands the law that they are responsible for making rather than, say, a clown who has no sense of detail or decorum who still seems somewhat popular with the Conservative/Brexit Party activists.

    That said I like Sunak. He is a major improvement on the Clown, and I might consider returning to the Conservative fold at the next GE, particularly if it looks like being a majority for the Labour/Public Sector Party.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 115,031

    HYUFD said:

    The Conservatives don't need to win 2019 Labour or LD voters, they need to win back voters who voted Conservative in 2019, 74% of whom in the above poll support preventing migrants in small boats from setting in the UK

    Precisely. This is a policy aimed at the Red Wall, not North London hand-wringers.

    Labour needs to tread carefully.
    Exactly Suella would be pushing this policy to appeal to the likes of Leigh and Stoke not Hampstead and Islington if she pursued it
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 16,484

    Are people still suggesting the Palestinian state is racist?

    The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.

    There is no Palestinian state. There never has been since Egypt and Jordan annexed what was supposed to be Palestine in 1948.

    Hamas which denies Israels right to exist absolutely is racist.

    A Palestinian state should be created from a proportion of the land Egypt and Jordan ceded in 1967 but that proportion needs to be negotiated. Until then, none yet exists and no defined border exists.
    The current Israeli state is racist and pursues racist policies. Your inability to admit that undermines any point you have.
    The current Israeli state pursues racist policies and is deeply flawed, I have said that and never said otherwise.

    However it's also indisputably the victim here. Other nations and people are literally trying to wipe it off the face of the earth and had they lost any war they'd have faced a second Holocaust.

    A new state called Palestine should be created but it needs agreed borders.

    If it were up to me to propose a solution then I would propose that Israel should unilaterally define the borders since it was the victim and the other parties to the war have ceded sovereignty. Any land it defines as Israeli is formally annexed and anyone living in that land gets Israeli citizenship without any racism or discrimination. The population in the rest of the land should then either create a new state called Palestine, or rejoin Egypt and Jordan once more.

    Other people have other ideas on how to negotiate the border though.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 46,262

    Are people still suggesting the Palestinian state is racist?

    The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.

    There is no Palestinian state. There never has been since Egypt and Jordan annexed what was supposed to be Palestine in 1948.

    Hamas which denies Israels right to exist absolutely is racist.

    A Palestinian state should be created from a proportion of the land Egypt and Jordan ceded in 1967 but that proportion needs to be negotiated. Until then, none yet exists and no defined border exists.
    The current Israeli state is racist and pursues racist policies. Your inability to admit that undermines any point you have.
    Is your view not that the Israeli state is inherently racist in its conception?
    Never said that.
    I know. I'm asking whether you think it.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,597
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP

    The average voter doesn't have two arms or legs.

    They do and they tend to live in places like Colchester, Nuneaton, Southampton, Harlow, Dover, Corby, Wrexham and Bolton where those views are common

    No, they don't. That's why talking about average voters is so foolish.

    They do, it is the median voter who decides elections ie typically a voter who voted Labour from 1997 to 2010 and has voted Conservative since and they tend to live in places of average wealth and earnings like that.

    They also as stated tended to be more socially conservative than most MPs but economically slightly more centre left

    Median is not the same as average.

  • TheKitchenCabinetTheKitchenCabinet Posts: 2,064
    A few points on the poll / comments

    1. There are more labour voters who strongly support the plan than Cons who are strongly against. So, yes, this solidifies the Con vote but it also looks like it could appeal to a small - but in a tight election significant - part of the Lab (and LD) vote.

    2. I'd also guess (but can't see) that those who are Labour voters but strong supporters are probably more the RW voters than those living in Inner London and labour's inner city strongholds. So, from a seat perspective, again might be significant.

    3. The thing with this plan is that it forces Starmer to come up with a credible alternative on a controversial plan. Contrary to some views on here, Starmer finds it hard to come up with solutions to such tricky problems (look at 'mainly women' comment). It will be interesting to see how he matches his party's views with those of voters Labour needs to win back.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 25,767

    Sunak's basic problem is delivery. They have endlessly promised they will fix this issue and instead it gets worse. Now they are making yet another rash promise they cannot deliver. Instead of it being the wedge issue to infuriate their remaining voters, it only serves to remind them that (a) they have done nothing so far and (b) they don't have a solution now.

    Nah, it will be blocked by the courts. Failure to deliver will be blamed on liberals. And believed by the gullible.
    That's been the story for years, and punters are increasingly bored of excuses. I gave a long list of excuses on the previous thread - at some point they need to come up with a solution. Otherwise if this is the red hot issue the PB Morality Police think it is, why bother voting Tory at all? Simply vote for REFUK who will pledge to sink the boats and fire the judges.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 57,439

    On topic - I think that if Sunak accompanies draconian legislation with genuine, clearly signposted and fully-functional safe routes to entry, while providing more funding to crime prevention so the police and other enforcement services can fight the problem of the trafficking gangs at root, then it will be hard for Labour to oppose...

    I think that's probably correct.
    And I note that Labour appear to be emphasising your point about functioning safe routes (from a couple of R4 interviews I've heard in the last day for so, at least).
  • TimSTimS Posts: 7,460
    It strikes me the "war on illegal immigration" as seen with the small boats crisis in Britain and the Med and the long term issues along the Mexican border in the US has some similar dynamics to the long standing war on drugs. Unwinnable, and none of the alternatives will please everyone.

    Your choices are essentially one of 3:

    1 Hard line crackdown in destination countries and at the border, criminalise, fight, invest in law enforcement
    2 Try to deal with the issue at source through either development aid or military / paramilitary intervention
    3 decriminalisation or legalisation

    1 never solves the issue long term but does have temporary successes, and the amounts wax and wane. 2 is notoriously difficult, expensive and a very slow process and besides, is increasingly difficult in an age where neocolonial adventures are frowned upon. 3 can be successful but can also increase the scale of the (legal) phenomenon.

    So in the end governments muddle along. The numbers ebb and flow with global wars, climate and governance, and the topic blows in and out of the news.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 16,484

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    DougSeal said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.

    A two state solution is not racist.

    Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
    Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
    "Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
    Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
    Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
    LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.

    Welcome the analysis.
    Good way to lose an argument.

    "Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
    I think Alexei is spot on

    “It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
    Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?

    These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
    There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
    The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.

    If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?

    Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
    By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
    Better still, separate the Israeli Government from Israelis and Jewish people both.
    Yes. The government is not the country. Thank god (2016/22).
    It is increasingly the case though that the Israeli population is becoming hard right, due to reduced liberal American Jewish immigration and divergent birth rates.
    Well in a democracy you don't get a hard right racist government by pure accident. But there's lots of internal opposition to it - and also external (amongst jews) opposition to it. So you do have to separate the policies and rhetoric of the Israeli government from jewish people, both as a whole and individually. Otherwise you'll fall into antisemitism, it's just a matter of to what degree. A respectable position (imo) is to support Israel's right to prosper in peace, now and forever, and at the same time recognize that the crimes being perpetrated (by it) against the Palestinians need to stop for this to happen.
    Wow, what a remarkable and nasty piece of victim blaming. Do women have to stop wearing short skirts in order to not get raped too in your eyes?

    A respectable position is to support Israels right to prosper in peace, now and forever. No ifs, no buts and no equivocation.

    A respectable position is also that a new state called Palestine should be created from some of the land that Egypt and Jordan ceded when they tried to wipe out Israel in 1967.

    What proportion of the land that Egypt and Jordan ceded becomes a new state called Palestine, and what proportion becomes part of Israel's territory needs to be negotiated. But those negotiations do not impede Israels right to peaceful existence, a peaceful existence that if it had been respected would mean that land would still be Egyptian and Jordanian.
    It is not victim blaming. The Israelis are not the victims these days. That is like saying someone who was assaulted as a teenager has carte blanche to assault others when they reach middle age. Israel needs to stop perpetuating violence, stop stealing land in breach of UN agreements and stop playing the victim as an excuse to do harm to others.
    What land is Israel stealing? They never invaded a state called Palestine, nor are they invading any land today.

    Germany lost land in its war of aggression, some formerly German land is now in Poland and other states. Germany won't get that land back. Poland is perfectly entitled to develop the land that it has now.

    Egypt and Jordan lost land in their war of aggression, they won't get it back. Israel is perfectly entitled to develop the land it has now, just as Poland is.

    A new state called Palestine should be created, but one does not yet exist and it does not yet have defined borders.
    Israel are driving the Palestinians out of land that they (the Israelis) accepted was Palestinian under a succession of accords and agreements. Their settlement policy in the West Bank is stealing land. The UN recognises that and so should all reasonable people. The Israeli attitude is hypocritical in the extreme. As a nation, particularly under the right wing and religious fanatic parties they are becoming the very thing they claim to detest. There is absolutely no defence for their attitudes beyond 'might is right'.

    There are indeed some comparisons which could be made with the actions of the Germans - just not the ones you think they are.
    Sorry but I believe you are totally wrong, the borders have never been agreed in any accord or agreement.

    If defined borders were ever agreed please name the accord and show the agreed map. The final state of borders has always been left to future negotiations and never settled.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,597

    Sunak's basic problem is delivery. They have endlessly promised they will fix this issue and instead it gets worse. Now they are making yet another rash promise they cannot deliver. Instead of it being the wedge issue to infuriate their remaining voters, it only serves to remind them that (a) they have done nothing so far and (b) they don't have a solution now.

    Nah, it will be blocked by the courts. Failure to deliver will be blamed on liberals. And believed by the gullible.
    They've already tried that, though. This is the problem with legislating to create headlines and dividing lines rather than to find solutions.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 19,348

    Sunak's basic problem is delivery. They have endlessly promised they will fix this issue and instead it gets worse. Now they are making yet another rash promise they cannot deliver. Instead of it being the wedge issue to infuriate their remaining voters, it only serves to remind them that (a) they have done nothing so far and (b) they don't have a solution now.

    Nah, it will be blocked by the courts. Failure to deliver will be blamed on liberals. And believed by the gullible.
    They've already tried that, though. This is the problem with legislating to create headlines and dividing lines rather than to find solutions.

    They keep trying it because it works politically. Actually fix it and it would remove a reason for the gullible to vote Tory instead of Labour.
  • The problem is, Rishi's policies violate human rights law.

    At the end of the day, these are still human beings.

    At the start of the day, they were in France.
    And most of them don't end up in the UK.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,721

    Sunak's basic problem is delivery. They have endlessly promised they will fix this issue and instead it gets worse. Now they are making yet another rash promise they cannot deliver. Instead of it being the wedge issue to infuriate their remaining voters, it only serves to remind them that (a) they have done nothing so far and (b) they don't have a solution now.

    Nah, it will be blocked by the courts. Failure to deliver will be blamed on liberals. And believed by the gullible.
    Exactly.

    But the problem is that as a country there are just certain things we should be good enough not to do.

    We shouldn't eliminate human rights, we shouldn't treat people like cattle.
    I don't disagree with you, but where my liberal sensitivities are conflicted are on the fact that people travel through many safe countries before taking a huge risk to get to the UK. IMHO, an asylum seeker becomes an economic migrant the moment they do not claim asylum in the first safe country they come to. And there is where the paradox lies.

    A solution to this would be to make asylum status contingent upon that criteria and then look to formulate an international agreement across Europe to accept a proportionate amount of genuine asylum seekers. Those who then want to come to the UK can apply as economic migrants.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,597

    Sunak's basic problem is delivery. They have endlessly promised they will fix this issue and instead it gets worse. Now they are making yet another rash promise they cannot deliver. Instead of it being the wedge issue to infuriate their remaining voters, it only serves to remind them that (a) they have done nothing so far and (b) they don't have a solution now.

    Nah, it will be blocked by the courts. Failure to deliver will be blamed on liberals. And believed by the gullible.
    They've already tried that, though. This is the problem with legislating to create headlines and dividing lines rather than to find solutions.

    They keep trying it because it works politically. Actually fix it and it would remove a reason for the gullible to vote Tory instead of Labour.

    The polls strongly indicate that it is not working politically.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 115,031

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On topic:

    Isn't the main takeaway here that 50% of the electorate either somewhat and strongly support Sunak's new small boats policy against 36% who somewhat or strongly oppose it?

    think this polling supports my prediction from the last thread, this weeks big policy push from Braveman and Rishi will be very very popular with the voters. Clearly it’s big popularity is not just confined to the editor of Mail on Sunday, look here High numbers of Lib dems like this hard response to “the invasion” that’s going on.

    The real weakness of people who disagree, as I explained to Rochdale why he’s so utterly wrong on this in the last thread - they whinge on about it’s not new, it won’t ever work, it sounds harsh on the invaders. Of course it’s not new, it’s “deterrent” thinking out the Tupperware and reheated. Of course it’s never going to work, but that’s not the point. To have any deterrent in place, those travelling need to know you have a deterrent in place. The deterrent being just how pointless their crossing is - because we have ripped up every agreement we had, and initially led the way on with rest of world, about how humane humanity must be - but those making these journeys are never going to know that. All they will learn is the traffickers spin, they will never hear of our hard deterrent. That’s why deterrent factor won’t work, in reality.

    But then, every Tory politician telling us there must be a deterrent and it WILL WORK don’t believe for a second it will, they really arn’t that stupid. This policy works because UK voters will get to know there’s a hard ball deterrent. That’s why it’s a strong policy, that’s where it works.

    A policy doesn’t actually have to work, doesn’t have be affordable or achievable or even not a complete fantasy, to be an electoral success is the point I’m making. This is national security, preserving our way of life, all you need to do to win votes is talk tough on invaders.

    For example, why not combine it with the US “Star Wars” program and zap the south coast invaders with lasers from space?


    The average voter would restore the death penalty for serial killers, ban gender reassignment surgery without doctors approval and ban migrants from entering the UK via the Channel using the Navy if possible.

    However the average voter would also increase taxes on the rich, increase nurses pay significantly and renationalise energy and water companies, Royal Mail and the train operating companies.

    The average voter is more socially conservative than most MPs but also economically more centre left than the average MP

    The average voter doesn't have two arms or legs.

    They do and they tend to live in places like Colchester, Nuneaton, Southampton, Harlow, Dover, Corby, Wrexham and Bolton where those views are common

    No, they don't. That's why talking about average voters is so foolish.

    They do, it is the median voter who decides elections ie typically a voter who voted Labour from 1997 to 2010 and has voted Conservative since and they tend to live in places of average wealth and earnings like that.

    They also as stated tended to be more socially conservative than most MPs but economically slightly more centre left

    Median is not the same as average.

    It is the most accurate average
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,721

    Are people still suggesting the Palestinian state is racist?

    The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.

    There is no Palestinian state. There never has been since Egypt and Jordan annexed what was supposed to be Palestine in 1948.

    Hamas which denies Israels right to exist absolutely is racist.

    A Palestinian state should be created from a proportion of the land Egypt and Jordan ceded in 1967 but that proportion needs to be negotiated. Until then, none yet exists and no defined border exists.
    The current Israeli state is racist and pursues racist policies. Your inability to admit that undermines any point you have.
    Is your view not that the Israeli state is inherently racist in its conception?
    Is Scottish Nationalism essentially racist in its conception? Discuss.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 16,484
    @Richard_Tyndall I've just double checked and the Oslo Accords explicitly do not define borders and leave the status of borders to future negotiations.

    Which accord or agreement are you claiming defines that land as Palestinian land? Since Oslo explicitly does not, and all reporting I've ever read has said borders are unresolved in negotiations.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,147
    If I understand this policy correctly, effectively no-one will be be allowed asylum, but few of the people that actually turn up here can be deported because most of them are in fact genuine refugees. So you just add to the ever increasing population held in camps, hotels etc because of Home Office inability to process anything.
This discussion has been closed.