Categories
Dealing with the small boats immigrants – the party divide – politicalbetting.com
Dealing 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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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...
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.
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?
Plus it’s a steady, fairly well paid job and certainly would protect refugees from whatever they are fleeing from.
Not insignificant numbers...
(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.)
Until such time, the polling is fairly meaningless.
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.
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.
Do you think this policy will achieve its aim?
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?
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.
[whiny noise] but do you think it’s actually deters? Do you think it actually works?
Wise up Algy 😇
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
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
Musk’s ideology is in direct conflict with his interests.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
At the end of the day, these are still human beings.
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).
The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.
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.
- 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.
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.
Much cheaper to just shout a lot.
Labour needs to tread carefully.
There are indeed some comparisons which could be made with the actions of the Germans - just not the ones you think they are.
But is there a weirder one than Saudi Arabis ?
https://www.populationpyramid.net/saudi-arabia/2022/
They also as stated tended to be more socially conservative than most MPs but economically slightly more centre left
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.