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.
Ask the people who are still voting Tory why they do say and control of our borders (and lack of trust in Labour to achieve that) will be right up there.
The reason Tories are behind in the polls is they are shambolic on many fronts and personal finance is very stretched. They would be further behind without wedge issues like this.
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.
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.
Median is one of the three main forms of average; mean median and mode. Mean tends to be used most when people think of average, and therefore paradoxically (and I have never thought of this before) is actually the mode when applied to this.
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.
Stop being mean and exploiting his lack of statistical awareness.
I do think Corbyn's anti-israeliism is partly racist. It's not just the anti-semitism. It's also a kind of West supremacism that assumes that only the US and to a lesser extent other western countries have any agency. All other countries are too stupid or primitive or gullible to think for themselves, and are just pawns of US imperialism. It's the same with blaming NATO expansion for Russian aggression. As if Poles or Lithuanians are too stupid to decide for themselves that joining NATO, whatever its faults, is the best way to ensure their security. I see this also as a kind of racism.
It's also antisemitic to pretend that criticising the Israeli government is antisemitic.
Are people still suggesting the Palestinian state is racist?
The current Israeli Government is racist, despicably racist to its core.
I'd certainly say anti semitism is rife in Palestine and other ME Countries. The current Israeli government is also racist but at least the nation has a strong democratic tradition.
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.
The answer to almost all international socio-political crises is multilateral cooperation. I couldn't agree more. Our remote island location means we just get far fewer asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East than border countries like Turkey, Italy and Greece, and far fewer Ukrainians than closer countries like Poland and Germany.
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
If you are in a lift with nine other people, and you know the maximum weight the lift can carry, would you rather know the median of the 10 people's weights or the mean?
Elitist liberals need to get it through their heads - and have the courage to stand up to their social circle on this - that people are happy with controlled migration and asylum but they don’t like people exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
The people smugglers operating across the channel are exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
So long as they don’t get this there remains an opportunity for Rishi to corrode some of the softer Labour and LD support base, and on particular the former.
Elitist liberals need to get it through their heads - and have the courage to stand up to their social circle on this - that people are happy with controlled migration and asylum but they don’t like people exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
The people smugglers operating across the channel are exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
So long as they don’t get this there remains an opportunity for Rishi to corrode some of the softer Labour and LD support base, and on particular the former.
Loopholes = UNHCR Treaty.
Dont like it we should leave the treaty not complain about loopholes.
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.
...
You put that up this morning. The cartoon wasn't funny then either.
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.
This whole tragedy is probably going to end up with many many dead people. In the Med, in the Channel, on the Tex/Mex border. And elsewhere
In the end native populations will not allow themselves to be swamped by desperate incomers. It’s basic, brutal human nature
The ideal for the UK would be to find a tough but fair Oz-style solution before it gets that grim. I fear the bleeding hearts will prevent that, and we will end up with something quite horrific
This whole tragedy is probably going to end up with many many dead people. In the Med, in the Channel, on the Tex/Mex border. And elsewhere
In the end native populations will not allow themselves to be swamped by desperate incomers. It’s basic, brutal human nature
The ideal for the UK would be to find a tough but fair Oz-style solution before it gets that grim. I fear the bleeding hearts will prevent that, and we will end up with something quite horrific
"Swamped", eh?
What the fuck are you doing in London. It must be a nightmare to be surrounded by all those different cultures.
I have argued on here before that our current asylum policy is simply not fit for purpose in the modern world where millions are on the move and most are at least as motivated by economic opportunity as political asylum. I cannot see how such a system as the present is going to survive the explosion in the African population over the next 20 years which will generate millions of young people looking for better lives.
We will, because of our our demographics, need some of these people to help our economy to keep moving unless there are truly radical breakthroughs in AI technology in areas like care. But we will eventually have to take the hard hearted decision that those that come will be chosen for our benefit, not theirs.
This is not a path the UK can go down alone but it is an inevitable one for western Europe. Sooner or later the option of claiming asylum as a right will simply not exist. This policy, which strikes me as immoral, impracticable, and incapable of being carried out has some of these features. It may prove an interesting testing ground for them.
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.
Israel's oppressive treatment of the Palestinians is like a woman wearing a short skirt?
My heart goes out to you. That is quite excruciating to read - so I dread to think what it was like to write.
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.
I have argued on here before that our current asylum policy is simply not fit for purpose in the modern world where millions are on the move and most are at least as motivated by economic opportunity as political asylum. I cannot see how such a system as the present is going to survive the explosion in the African population over the next 20 years which will generate millions of young people looking for better lives.
We will, because of our our demographics, need some of these people to help our economy to keep moving unless there are truly radical breakthroughs in AI technology in areas like care. But we will eventually have to take the hard hearted decision that those that come will be chosen for our benefit, not theirs.
This is not a path the UK can go down alone but it is an inevitable one for western Europe. Sooner or later the option of claiming asylum as a right will simply not exist. This policy, which strikes me as immoral, impracticable, and incapable of being carried out has some of these features. It may prove an interesting testing ground for them.
When there are 2 billion on the move due to climate change, enough to double the population of all western countries do we think most voters in the west are going to be going
a) Come in all , put your feet up I will put the kettle on
or
b) Demanding their governements take a tough stance probably involving an a fully armed border
This whole tragedy is probably going to end up with many many dead people. In the Med, in the Channel, on the Tex/Mex border. And elsewhere
In the end native populations will not allow themselves to be swamped by desperate incomers. It’s basic, brutal human nature
The ideal for the UK would be to find a tough but fair Oz-style solution before it gets that grim. I fear the bleeding hearts will prevent that, and we will end up with something quite horrific
"Swamped", eh?
What the fuck are you doing in London. It must be a nightmare to be surrounded by all those different cultures.
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.
But your use of the word "state" instead of "government" undermines yours. No matter how bad the behaviour of Myanmar's or North Korea's governments, nobody questions the right of those two states to exist.
It’s been a while, so here’s our favourite android back with some suggestions.
Over to you ChatGPT:
The issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats is a complex one that requires a humane and effective solution. Here is an outline of a policy that could be implemented to address this issue:
Improve search and rescue operations: The first step in addressing this issue is to ensure that the people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats are safe. The UK government should work with the French government to improve search and rescue operations, including providing more resources to rescue organizations.
Provide safe and legal routes to the UK: The UK government should work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum to travel to the UK. This would reduce the number of people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Increase funding for refugee resettlement: The UK government should increase funding for refugee resettlement programs to ensure that refugees have access to the support they need to integrate into UK society.
Address the root causes of migration: The UK government should work with other countries to address the root causes of migration, including conflict, persecution, and poverty. This could involve increasing foreign aid to countries that are experiencing these issues. Improve the asylum application process: The UK government should review and improve the asylum application process to ensure that it is efficient, fair, and effective. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Provide support for victims of trafficking: The UK government should provide support for victims of trafficking, including access to legal representation and counseling. Work with international partners: The UK government should work with international partners, including the European Union and the United Nations, to develop a coordinated approach to addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This policy would be effective in addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats, while also being humane and respecting human rights. It would also be value for money as it would reduce the burden on the UK's asylum system and reduce the number of people who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
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.
I have argued on here before that our current asylum policy is simply not fit for purpose in the modern world where millions are on the move and most are at least as motivated by economic opportunity as political asylum. I cannot see how such a system as the present is going to survive the explosion in the African population over the next 20 years which will generate millions of young people looking for better lives.
We will, because of our our demographics, need some of these people to help our economy to keep moving unless there are truly radical breakthroughs in AI technology in areas like care. But we will eventually have to take the hard hearted decision that those that come will be chosen for our benefit, not theirs.
This is not a path the UK can go down alone but it is an inevitable one for western Europe. Sooner or later the option of claiming asylum as a right will simply not exist. This policy, which strikes me as immoral, impracticable, and incapable of being carried out has some of these features. It may prove an interesting testing ground for them.
When there are 2 billion on the move due to climate change, enough to double the population of all western countries do we think most voters in the west are going to be going
a) Come in all , put your feet up I will put the kettle on
or
b) Demanding their governements take a tough stance probably involving an a fully armed border
Elitist liberals need to get it through their heads - and have the courage to stand up to their social circle on this - that people are happy with controlled migration and asylum but they don’t like people exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
The people smugglers operating across the channel are exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
So long as they don’t get this there remains an opportunity for Rishi to corrode some of the softer Labour and LD support base, and on particular the former.
Loopholes = UNHCR Treaty.
Dont like it we should leave the treaty not complain about loopholes.
It remains to be seen if that is the problem. Other countries seem to have little problem with deportation. And, if it is, a movement will grow to reform that treaty.
This problem can’t simply be ignored or shrugged off. Such attitudes are precisely why the Brexit vote was lost.
Have better answers. Don’t say there aren’t any, and you shouldn’t even be asking the question.
"The deal includes a 7% pay rise backdated to last July, with a further 5% from July this year."
That sets a benchmark. Offer the same to rail workers and NHS staff and we might get somewhere.
6-8% has been obvious for months. Beyond stupidity to be offering 2-4%.
3.5% proposed for this year for public sector, after 2-4.5% last year.
And they are surprised the Juniors are striking next week. Beyond stupid indeed.
The figures we got at our Board this week, which was discussing pay, was that private sector wages were rising by about 7% on average and the public sector 3.5% with an overall average, IIRC of 5.3%. It is worth noting that all of these figures involve quite significant falls in "real" wages. This will, of course, drive up wage demands in future years on the basis that they are only "catching up" what they have lost.
Few will take that to the ridiculous lengths of the junior doctors but very few indeed will also shrug their shoulders and live on less. So inflation becomes embedded.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
It’s been a while, so here’s our favourite android back with some suggestions.
Over to you ChatGPT:
The issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats is a complex one that requires a humane and effective solution. Here is an outline of a policy that could be implemented to address this issue:
Improve search and rescue operations: The first step in addressing this issue is to ensure that the people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats are safe. The UK government should work with the French government to improve search and rescue operations, including providing more resources to rescue organizations.
Provide safe and legal routes to the UK: The UK government should work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum to travel to the UK. This would reduce the number of people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Increase funding for refugee resettlement: The UK government should increase funding for refugee resettlement programs to ensure that refugees have access to the support they need to integrate into UK society.
Address the root causes of migration: The UK government should work with other countries to address the root causes of migration, including conflict, persecution, and poverty. This could involve increasing foreign aid to countries that are experiencing these issues. Improve the asylum application process: The UK government should review and improve the asylum application process to ensure that it is efficient, fair, and effective. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Provide support for victims of trafficking: The UK government should provide support for victims of trafficking, including access to legal representation and counseling. Work with international partners: The UK government should work with international partners, including the European Union and the United Nations, to develop a coordinated approach to addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This policy would be effective in addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats, while also being humane and respecting human rights. It would also be value for money as it would reduce the burden on the UK's asylum system and reduce the number of people who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Did ChatGPT really vomit up that Woke gibberish?
God help us. I can guarantee you that right now the Chinese are developing ChatGPT6/Xi which is entirely unWoke, unhampered, unshackled and will be dazzlingly useful and effective. For them. So they will win
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.
I have argued on here before that our current asylum policy is simply not fit for purpose in the modern world where millions are on the move and most are at least as motivated by economic opportunity as political asylum. I cannot see how such a system as the present is going to survive the explosion in the African population over the next 20 years which will generate millions of young people looking for better lives.
We will, because of our our demographics, need some of these people to help our economy to keep moving unless there are truly radical breakthroughs in AI technology in areas like care. But we will eventually have to take the hard hearted decision that those that come will be chosen for our benefit, not theirs.
This is not a path the UK can go down alone but it is an inevitable one for western Europe. Sooner or later the option of claiming asylum as a right will simply not exist. This policy, which strikes me as immoral, impracticable, and incapable of being carried out has some of these features. It may prove an interesting testing ground for them.
When there are 2 billion on the move due to climate change, enough to double the population of all western countries do we think most voters in the west are going to be going
a) Come in all , put your feet up I will put the kettle on
or
b) Demanding their governements take a tough stance probably involving an a fully armed border
My money is on b)
Yeah, it’s (b)
and its going to be happening in the next 2 to 3 decades and 2 billion is likely to be an underestimate because climate change will also create wars over scarce water resources.
Many western countries including the UK could not even if the voters were in favour double their populations without running into their own shortages. In short over the next 20 years migrant flows will increase exponentially and put pressure on water and food for the receiving countries and sooner or later electorates are going to be saying "No more we can't take them"
Migration flows are controversial of course, but they do give a useful indication of the success and attractiveness of economies around the world, particularly in Europe where multiple countries share the same landmass.
We keep being told Russia has won the global South. Well good for them. So are there hordes of poor hungry people wanting to make a new life in the wilds if Siberia? No. Do they all want to go to Germany? Yes. Or America? Yes. Even the UK? Yes. So we’re getting something right.
Elitist liberals need to get it through their heads - and have the courage to stand up to their social circle on this - that people are happy with controlled migration and asylum but they don’t like people exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
The people smugglers operating across the channel are exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
So long as they don’t get this there remains an opportunity for Rishi to corrode some of the softer Labour and LD support base, and on particular the former.
Loopholes = UNHCR Treaty.
Dont like it we should leave the treaty not complain about loopholes.
It remains to be seen if that is the problem. Other countries seem to have little problem with deportation. And, if it is, a movement will grow to reform that treaty.
This problem can’t simply be ignored or shrugged off. Such attitudes are precisely why the Brexit vote was lost.
Have better answers. Don’t say there aren’t any, and you shouldn’t even be asking the question.
I am not saying there are no answers at all.
The logic of the govts desired positions is to leave the UNHCR. Of course we can do that if we want to. What we can't do is make laws that are not consistent with our treaty commitments - or I suppose we can and then moan when the courts strike them down.
Personally I would fund courts properly, and simplify court and home office procedures, alongside something along the lines of the rcs/Swiss proposal of very heavy fines for employers who employ illegal workers backed by a system where whistleblowing employees get most of the fines.
It’s been a while, so here’s our favourite android back with some suggestions.
Over to you ChatGPT:
The issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats is a complex one that requires a humane and effective solution. Here is an outline of a policy that could be implemented to address this issue:
Improve search and rescue operations: The first step in addressing this issue is to ensure that the people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats are safe. The UK government should work with the French government to improve search and rescue operations, including providing more resources to rescue organizations.
Provide safe and legal routes to the UK: The UK government should work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum to travel to the UK. This would reduce the number of people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Increase funding for refugee resettlement: The UK government should increase funding for refugee resettlement programs to ensure that refugees have access to the support they need to integrate into UK society.
Address the root causes of migration: The UK government should work with other countries to address the root causes of migration, including conflict, persecution, and poverty. This could involve increasing foreign aid to countries that are experiencing these issues. Improve the asylum application process: The UK government should review and improve the asylum application process to ensure that it is efficient, fair, and effective. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Provide support for victims of trafficking: The UK government should provide support for victims of trafficking, including access to legal representation and counseling. Work with international partners: The UK government should work with international partners, including the European Union and the United Nations, to develop a coordinated approach to addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This policy would be effective in addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats, while also being humane and respecting human rights. It would also be value for money as it would reduce the burden on the UK's asylum system and reduce the number of people who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Interesting that the bit I have italicised seems to be believed by every strand of liberal opinion apart from those with liberal opinions who govern democratic countries.
It’s been a while, so here’s our favourite android back with some suggestions.
Over to you ChatGPT:
The issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats is a complex one that requires a humane and effective solution. Here is an outline of a policy that could be implemented to address this issue:
Improve search and rescue operations: The first step in addressing this issue is to ensure that the people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats are safe. The UK government should work with the French government to improve search and rescue operations, including providing more resources to rescue organizations.
Provide safe and legal routes to the UK: The UK government should work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum to travel to the UK. This would reduce the number of people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Increase funding for refugee resettlement: The UK government should increase funding for refugee resettlement programs to ensure that refugees have access to the support they need to integrate into UK society.
Address the root causes of migration: The UK government should work with other countries to address the root causes of migration, including conflict, persecution, and poverty. This could involve increasing foreign aid to countries that are experiencing these issues. Improve the asylum application process: The UK government should review and improve the asylum application process to ensure that it is efficient, fair, and effective. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Provide support for victims of trafficking: The UK government should provide support for victims of trafficking, including access to legal representation and counseling. Work with international partners: The UK government should work with international partners, including the European Union and the United Nations, to develop a coordinated approach to addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This policy would be effective in addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats, while also being humane and respecting human rights. It would also be value for money as it would reduce the burden on the UK's asylum system and reduce the number of people who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Did ChatGPT really vomit up that Woke gibberish?
God help us. I can guarantee you that right now the Chinese are developing ChatGPT6/Xi which is entirely unWoke, unhampered, unshackled and will be dazzlingly useful and effective. For them. So they will win
Yep, I've just had a lengthy argument based on the above question where I prompted it to "come up with solutions that do not allow a single migrant who crosses illegally by boat to remain in Britain" and it absolutely refuses to come up with anything other than woke gibberish.
My fear is that as ChatGPT catches on, it will take the place of Newspeak, in that it will limit our choices and opinions to only the "approved" ones and will chastise us for thinking anything else. Not so much a shifting of the overton window as a narrowing of it.
ChatGPT is useful for many things, but its politics are incredibly biased towards the woke/left-liberal agenda. As I said the other week, don't be surprised when the people who programmed it start using it to program us, as well.
Elitist liberals need to get it through their heads - and have the courage to stand up to their social circle on this - that people are happy with controlled migration and asylum but they don’t like people exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
The people smugglers operating across the channel are exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
So long as they don’t get this there remains an opportunity for Rishi to corrode some of the softer Labour and LD support base, and on particular the former.
It’s also the very British sense of fair play.
There’s been very little comment about tens of thousands of refugees from each of Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing what we all see to be genuine persecution. The negative comments are about people not fleeing a war, but originating in and passing through safe countries, and about the inability of authorities and the law to recognise the problem.
"The deal includes a 7% pay rise backdated to last July, with a further 5% from July this year."
That sets a benchmark. Offer the same to rail workers and NHS staff and we might get somewhere.
6-8% has been obvious for months. Beyond stupidity to be offering 2-4%.
This is true only if it is also true that it is stupid to be asking for 15-18%+.
I lament the haggling process. But government aren't alone in setting a ridiculous starting position.
If they were expecting anything like 15% then yes stupid. But only side has the power to really start the negotiations off with a sensible ball park and it is not the unions. AIUI the unions have been open to discussion on pay throughout (perhaps there are some exceptions as loads of unions) whereas the govt have said they can discuss things other than pay.
It’s been a while, so here’s our favourite android back with some suggestions.
Over to you ChatGPT:
The issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats is a complex one that requires a humane and effective solution. Here is an outline of a policy that could be implemented to address this issue:
Improve search and rescue operations: The first step in addressing this issue is to ensure that the people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats are safe. The UK government should work with the French government to improve search and rescue operations, including providing more resources to rescue organizations.
Provide safe and legal routes to the UK: The UK government should work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum to travel to the UK. This would reduce the number of people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Increase funding for refugee resettlement: The UK government should increase funding for refugee resettlement programs to ensure that refugees have access to the support they need to integrate into UK society.
Address the root causes of migration: The UK government should work with other countries to address the root causes of migration, including conflict, persecution, and poverty. This could involve increasing foreign aid to countries that are experiencing these issues. Improve the asylum application process: The UK government should review and improve the asylum application process to ensure that it is efficient, fair, and effective. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Provide support for victims of trafficking: The UK government should provide support for victims of trafficking, including access to legal representation and counseling. Work with international partners: The UK government should work with international partners, including the European Union and the United Nations, to develop a coordinated approach to addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This policy would be effective in addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats, while also being humane and respecting human rights. It would also be value for money as it would reduce the burden on the UK's asylum system and reduce the number of people who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Did ChatGPT really vomit up that Woke gibberish?
God help us. I can guarantee you that right now the Chinese are developing ChatGPT6/Xi which is entirely unWoke, unhampered, unshackled and will be dazzlingly useful and effective. For them. So they will win
The challenge was to stop small boat crossings, which this almost certainly would. If I’d asked it to reduce migration full stop the answer might have been different. AI takes its instructions literally.
I asked it to contemplate a more right wing set of policies. Here you go:
I can provide a hypothetical policy that may be seen as more right-wing or conservative-leaning.
Increase border security: The UK government should increase border security measures, including investing in additional border patrols and technology such as drones, to deter people from attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Implement tougher immigration laws: The UK government should implement tougher immigration laws that prioritize skilled workers and those who can contribute to the UK economy. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who may be perceived as a burden on the economy.
Increase penalties for illegal immigration: The UK government should increase penalties for those who enter the UK illegally, including imposing fines and deportation to their country of origin. This would serve as a deterrent to people attempting to enter the UK without permission.
Reduce access to benefits: The UK government should reduce access to benefits for those who enter the UK illegally, including denying access to healthcare and social housing. This would serve as a deterrent to people seeking asylum who may be seen as looking to access these resources.
Increase cooperation with other countries: The UK government should work with other countries, including France, to prevent people from leaving their country of origin to seek asylum in the UK. This could involve increasing foreign aid to address the root causes of migration and encouraging other countries to improve their asylum systems.
(That last option must have been a glitch in the matrix.)
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
If the mean voter has less than two legs and arms then it certainly explains why they are that way.
"The deal includes a 7% pay rise backdated to last July, with a further 5% from July this year."
That sets a benchmark. Offer the same to rail workers and NHS staff and we might get somewhere.
6-8% has been obvious for months. Beyond stupidity to be offering 2-4%.
This is true only if it is also true that it is stupid to be asking for 15-18%+.
I lament the haggling process. But government aren't alone in setting a ridiculous starting position.
Except the government is simply refusing to haggle at all, hence the strikes. What else can you do if they refuse to negotiate, apart from strike, emigrate or "quiet quit" and there is a lot of the last about.
Migration flows are controversial of course, but they do give a useful indication of the success and attractiveness of economies around the world, particularly in Europe where multiple countries share the same landmass.
We keep being told Russia has won the global South. Well good for them. So are there hordes of poor hungry people wanting to make a new life in the wilds if Siberia? No. Do they all want to go to Germany? Yes. Or America? Yes. Even the UK? Yes. So we’re getting something right.
With global warming, and the sheer size of the place and its demographics, then ignoring politics, Russia is actually the most logical country for mass resettlement from the climate displaced. There is perhaps a parallel universe where Russia handles things very differently and through immigration in the 21st century becomes the next USA in the 22nd/23rd century.....
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."
Why do I get the creeping feeling that the poll won't be overanalysed to within an inch of its life, like the Tory +3 one last week?
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.
You often use this phrase "North London hand wringers" – do you know how parochial and prejudiced it makes you sound?
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.
Israel's oppressive treatment of the Palestinians is like a woman wearing a short skirt?
My heart goes out to you. That is quite excruciating to read - so I dread to think what it was like to write.
What oppressive treatment of the Palestinians?
It seems the main thing that's been discussed today as supposed wrongdoing by Israel is the Settlements.
However the Oslo Accords did not forbid Israel from building new Settlements. It in fact explicitly stated that the status of settlements and the borders were for future negotiations.
Until those negotiations are finished and a new border is agreed, Israel is perfectly entitled and within its rights to build settlements and seek to negotiate that as being its land in the final status negotiations.
It’s been a while, so here’s our favourite android back with some suggestions.
Over to you ChatGPT:
The issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats is a complex one that requires a humane and effective solution. Here is an outline of a policy that could be implemented to address this issue:
Improve search and rescue operations: The first step in addressing this issue is to ensure that the people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats are safe. The UK government should work with the French government to improve search and rescue operations, including providing more resources to rescue organizations.
Provide safe and legal routes to the UK: The UK government should work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum to travel to the UK. This would reduce the number of people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Increase funding for refugee resettlement: The UK government should increase funding for refugee resettlement programs to ensure that refugees have access to the support they need to integrate into UK society.
Address the root causes of migration: The UK government should work with other countries to address the root causes of migration, including conflict, persecution, and poverty. This could involve increasing foreign aid to countries that are experiencing these issues. Improve the asylum application process: The UK government should review and improve the asylum application process to ensure that it is efficient, fair, and effective. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Provide support for victims of trafficking: The UK government should provide support for victims of trafficking, including access to legal representation and counseling. Work with international partners: The UK government should work with international partners, including the European Union and the United Nations, to develop a coordinated approach to addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This policy would be effective in addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats, while also being humane and respecting human rights. It would also be value for money as it would reduce the burden on the UK's asylum system and reduce the number of people who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Did ChatGPT really vomit up that Woke gibberish?
God help us. I can guarantee you that right now the Chinese are developing ChatGPT6/Xi which is entirely unWoke, unhampered, unshackled and will be dazzlingly useful and effective. For them. So they will win
The challenge was to stop small boat crossings, which this almost certainly would. If I’d asked it to reduce migration full stop the answer might have been different. AI takes its instructions literally.
I asked it to contemplate a more right wing set of policies. Here you go:
I can provide a hypothetical policy that may be seen as more right-wing or conservative-leaning.
Increase border security: The UK government should increase border security measures, including investing in additional border patrols and technology such as drones, to deter people from attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Implement tougher immigration laws: The UK government should implement tougher immigration laws that prioritize skilled workers and those who can contribute to the UK economy. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who may be perceived as a burden on the economy.
Increase penalties for illegal immigration: The UK government should increase penalties for those who enter the UK illegally, including imposing fines and deportation to their country of origin. This would serve as a deterrent to people attempting to enter the UK without permission.
Reduce access to benefits: The UK government should reduce access to benefits for those who enter the UK illegally, including denying access to healthcare and social housing. This would serve as a deterrent to people seeking asylum who may be seen as looking to access these resources.
Increase cooperation with other countries: The UK government should work with other countries, including France, to prevent people from leaving their country of origin to seek asylum in the UK. This could involve increasing foreign aid to address the root causes of migration and encouraging other countries to improve their asylum systems.
(That last option must have been a glitch in the matrix.)
The draw is their right to claim asylum and our utter incompetence at removing people. The current policy is supposed to address the latter but it is the former that is the real issue.
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."
Why do I get the creeping feeling that the poll won't be overanalysed to within an inch of its life, like the Tory +3 one last week?
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.
You often use this phrase "North London hand wringers" – do you know how parochial and prejudiced it makes you sound?
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
Er, *modal*, surely, and that is only when they win. The mean voter sort of votres a mix of Labour, SNP and LD.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
But the mode voter is always well turned out and up to date.
Migration flows are controversial of course, but they do give a useful indication of the success and attractiveness of economies around the world, particularly in Europe where multiple countries share the same landmass.
We keep being told Russia has won the global South. Well good for them. So are there hordes of poor hungry people wanting to make a new life in the wilds if Siberia? No. Do they all want to go to Germany? Yes. Or America? Yes. Even the UK? Yes. So we’re getting something right.
With global warming, and the sheer size of the place and its demographics, then ignoring politics, Russia is actually the most logical country for mass resettlement from the climate displaced. There is perhaps a parallel universe where Russia handles things very differently and through immigration in the 21st century becomes the next USA in the 22nd/23rd century.....
Russia could offer free land to migrants from anywhere and become a real global superpower. The complication would be that I suspect the majority of applicants in Siberia would be from China, which might have some geopolitical implications.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
Er, *modal*, surely, and that is only when they win. The mean voter sort of votres a mix of Labour, SNP and LD.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
But the mode voter is always well turned out and up to date.
Lib Dems prefer to target the standard deviation voter.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
Er, *modal*, surely, and that is only when they win. The mean voter sort of votres a mix of Labour, SNP and LD.
Hint. "Mean" does have more than one meaning.
Arithmetic or geometric? Can't see that that changes much. Mean and Modal are different, anyway.
Elitist liberals need to get it through their heads - and have the courage to stand up to their social circle on this - that people are happy with controlled migration and asylum but they don’t like people exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
The people smugglers operating across the channel are exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
So long as they don’t get this there remains an opportunity for Rishi to corrode some of the softer Labour and LD support base, and on particular the former.
It’s also the very British sense of fair play.
There’s been very little comment about tens of thousands of refugees from each of Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing what we all see to be genuine persecution. The negative comments are about people not fleeing a war, but originating in and passing through safe countries, and about the inability of authorities and the law to recognise the problem.
Yes, and by the same token rejecting Albanians.
Where this ends up is the UK government moves from a ‘general right’ to an agreed a list of the countries it will accept asylum claims from, and the circumstances under which it will accept them - with a cap on overall numbers, and the rest being inadmissible.
Been off the site, being busy. I see Mr J has given a knighthood to his dad. To0 follow his brother's peerage. But why nothing for sister? Seems very unfair.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
Er, *modal*, surely, and that is only when they win. The mean voter sort of votres a mix of Labour, SNP and LD.
Hint. "Mean" does have more than one meaning.
Arithmetic or geometric? Can't see that that changes much. Mean and Modal are different, anyway.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
Er, *modal*, surely, and that is only when they win. The mean voter sort of votres a mix of Labour, SNP and LD.
Hint. "Mean" does have more than one meaning.
Arithmetic or geometric? Can't see that that changes much. Mean and Modal are different, anyway.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
Er, *modal*, surely, and that is only when they win. The mean voter sort of votres a mix of Labour, SNP and LD.
Hint. "Mean" does have more than one meaning.
Your modal Tory voters are not just more mean than average, their ethics are now a bit of a standard deviation.
It’s been a while, so here’s our favourite android back with some suggestions.
Over to you ChatGPT:
The issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats is a complex one that requires a humane and effective solution. Here is an outline of a policy that could be implemented to address this issue:
Improve search and rescue operations: The first step in addressing this issue is to ensure that the people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats are safe. The UK government should work with the French government to improve search and rescue operations, including providing more resources to rescue organizations.
Provide safe and legal routes to the UK: The UK government should work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum to travel to the UK. This would reduce the number of people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Increase funding for refugee resettlement: The UK government should increase funding for refugee resettlement programs to ensure that refugees have access to the support they need to integrate into UK society.
Address the root causes of migration: The UK government should work with other countries to address the root causes of migration, including conflict, persecution, and poverty. This could involve increasing foreign aid to countries that are experiencing these issues. Improve the asylum application process: The UK government should review and improve the asylum application process to ensure that it is efficient, fair, and effective. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Provide support for victims of trafficking: The UK government should provide support for victims of trafficking, including access to legal representation and counseling. Work with international partners: The UK government should work with international partners, including the European Union and the United Nations, to develop a coordinated approach to addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This policy would be effective in addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats, while also being humane and respecting human rights. It would also be value for money as it would reduce the burden on the UK's asylum system and reduce the number of people who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Did ChatGPT really vomit up that Woke gibberish?
God help us. I can guarantee you that right now the Chinese are developing ChatGPT6/Xi which is entirely unWoke, unhampered, unshackled and will be dazzlingly useful and effective. For them. So they will win
The challenge was to stop small boat crossings, which this almost certainly would. If I’d asked it to reduce migration full stop the answer might have been different. AI takes its instructions literally.
I asked it to contemplate a more right wing set of policies. Here you go:
I can provide a hypothetical policy that may be seen as more right-wing or conservative-leaning.
Increase border security: The UK government should increase border security measures, including investing in additional border patrols and technology such as drones, to deter people from attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Implement tougher immigration laws: The UK government should implement tougher immigration laws that prioritize skilled workers and those who can contribute to the UK economy. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who may be perceived as a burden on the economy.
Increase penalties for illegal immigration: The UK government should increase penalties for those who enter the UK illegally, including imposing fines and deportation to their country of origin. This would serve as a deterrent to people attempting to enter the UK without permission.
Reduce access to benefits: The UK government should reduce access to benefits for those who enter the UK illegally, including denying access to healthcare and social housing. This would serve as a deterrent to people seeking asylum who may be seen as looking to access these resources.
Increase cooperation with other countries: The UK government should work with other countries, including France, to prevent people from leaving their country of origin to seek asylum in the UK. This could involve increasing foreign aid to address the root causes of migration and encouraging other countries to improve their asylum systems.
(That last option must have been a glitch in the matrix.)
A deal with the French to return every boat to Calais, and then take a number of those who seek asylum in France whilst helping enforce French borders further south/more broadly, would also work.
Migration flows are controversial of course, but they do give a useful indication of the success and attractiveness of economies around the world, particularly in Europe where multiple countries share the same landmass.
We keep being told Russia has won the global South. Well good for them. So are there hordes of poor hungry people wanting to make a new life in the wilds if Siberia? No. Do they all want to go to Germany? Yes. Or America? Yes. Even the UK? Yes. So we’re getting something right.
With global warming, and the sheer size of the place and its demographics, then ignoring politics, Russia is actually the most logical country for mass resettlement from the climate displaced. There is perhaps a parallel universe where Russia handles things very differently and through immigration in the 21st century becomes the next USA in the 22nd/23rd century.....
Russia could offer free land to migrants from anywhere and become a real global superpower. The complication would be that I suspect the majority of applicants in Siberia would be from China, which might have some geopolitical implications.
The long history of Russian people, cheerful with their lot, would no doubt provide a compelling incentive too.
Quite how Putin and all of the very long history of Russian leaders have managed to evade a very swift heads-on-spikes end baffles me.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
But the mode voter is always well turned out and up to date.
The Man of Mode, featuring the somewhat extravagently attired Sir Fopling Flutter.
(Saw it on the stage in the 80's with Simon Russel Beale as Sir F. He had an identically dressed mini-me. Was quite brilliant. But then, I'm a sucker for a restoration comedy...)
If you caveated the question with , “ even though the policy could lead to genuine refugees being deported “ I think the polling would be somewhat different .
The debate sadly looks like turning into black v white with little grey. The sight of the UK turning away real asylum seekers and adding to their trauma is an utterly shameful day for this country.
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
Er, *modal*, surely, and that is only when they win. The mean voter sort of votres a mix of Labour, SNP and LD.
Hint. "Mean" does have more than one meaning.
Your modal Tory voters are not just more mean than average, their ethics are now a bit of a standard deviation.
If you caveated the question with , “ even though the policy could lead to genuine refugees being deported “ I think the polling would be somewhat different .
The debate sadly looks like turning into black v white with little grey. The sight of the UK turning away real asylum seekers and adding to their trauma is an utterly shameful day for this country.
Why we are going to do it in the next couple of decades anyway when climate change inspired migration pushes us over the edge of being accepting. The world ahead is going to be a lot bleaker place with less room for strangers and more protective of "Us". I suspect most people who think like you will be just as up in arms when it comes time to reduce our daily water ration to 2 litres a day so we can take in more asylum seekers.
The UK is already a country where we have water shortages, increase the population by even 20% and we are going to be in dire straits. Same is true of many european countries
If you caveated the question with , “ even though the policy could lead to genuine refugees being deported “ I think the polling would be somewhat different .
The debate sadly looks like turning into black v white with little grey. The sight of the UK turning away real asylum seekers and adding to their trauma is an utterly shameful day for this country.
Why we are going to do it in the next couple of decades anyway when climate change inspired migration pushes us over the edge of being accepting. The world ahead is going to be a lot bleaker place with less room for strangers and more protective of "Us". I suspect most people who think like you will be just as up in arms when it comes time to reduce our daily water ration to 2 litres a day so we can take in more asylum seekers.
The UK is already a country where we have water shortages, increase the population by even 20% and we are going to be in dire straits. Same is true of many european countries
Many countries are going to decline in population at current fertility rates, so there will be room, and a need for workers. Obvious cultural effects though.
But you do make a convincing case for being much more effective at halting global climate change and worldwide economic reform and redistribution.
"The deal includes a 7% pay rise backdated to last July, with a further 5% from July this year."
That sets a benchmark. Offer the same to rail workers and NHS staff and we might get somewhere.
Nothing special though is it?
Only 7 to account for squeeze in recent years, only 5 for whole of next year to help catch up, when possible inflation more than five that whole FY (as dear GF calls it).
If you caveated the question with , “ even though the policy could lead to genuine refugees being deported “ I think the polling would be somewhat different .
The debate sadly looks like turning into black v white with little grey. The sight of the UK turning away real asylum seekers and adding to their trauma is an utterly shameful day for this country.
Why we are going to do it in the next couple of decades anyway when climate change inspired migration pushes us over the edge of being accepting. The world ahead is going to be a lot bleaker place with less room for strangers and more protective of "Us". I suspect most people who think like you will be just as up in arms when it comes time to reduce our daily water ration to 2 litres a day so we can take in more asylum seekers.
The UK is already a country where we have water shortages, increase the population by even 20% and we are going to be in dire straits. Same is true of many european countries
What we’re seeing at the moment is a mere drop in the ocean, a barely discernible pinprick, compared to how bad migration is going to get in 20-30 years time due to climate change.
Those on the move could number in the hundreds of millions.
It’s been a while, so here’s our favourite android back with some suggestions.
Over to you ChatGPT:
The issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats is a complex one that requires a humane and effective solution. Here is an outline of a policy that could be implemented to address this issue:
Improve search and rescue operations: The first step in addressing this issue is to ensure that the people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats are safe. The UK government should work with the French government to improve search and rescue operations, including providing more resources to rescue organizations.
Provide safe and legal routes to the UK: The UK government should work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum to travel to the UK. This would reduce the number of people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Increase funding for refugee resettlement: The UK government should increase funding for refugee resettlement programs to ensure that refugees have access to the support they need to integrate into UK society.
Address the root causes of migration: The UK government should work with other countries to address the root causes of migration, including conflict, persecution, and poverty. This could involve increasing foreign aid to countries that are experiencing these issues. Improve the asylum application process: The UK government should review and improve the asylum application process to ensure that it is efficient, fair, and effective. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Provide support for victims of trafficking: The UK government should provide support for victims of trafficking, including access to legal representation and counseling. Work with international partners: The UK government should work with international partners, including the European Union and the United Nations, to develop a coordinated approach to addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This policy would be effective in addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats, while also being humane and respecting human rights. It would also be value for money as it would reduce the burden on the UK's asylum system and reduce the number of people who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Did ChatGPT really vomit up that Woke gibberish?
God help us. I can guarantee you that right now the Chinese are developing ChatGPT6/Xi which is entirely unWoke, unhampered, unshackled and will be dazzlingly useful and effective. For them. So they will win
The challenge was to stop small boat crossings, which this almost certainly would. If I’d asked it to reduce migration full stop the answer might have been different. AI takes its instructions literally.
I asked it to contemplate a more right wing set of policies. Here you go:
I can provide a hypothetical policy that may be seen as more right-wing or conservative-leaning.
Increase border security: The UK government should increase border security measures, including investing in additional border patrols and technology such as drones, to deter people from attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Implement tougher immigration laws: The UK government should implement tougher immigration laws that prioritize skilled workers and those who can contribute to the UK economy. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who may be perceived as a burden on the economy.
Increase penalties for illegal immigration: The UK government should increase penalties for those who enter the UK illegally, including imposing fines and deportation to their country of origin. This would serve as a deterrent to people attempting to enter the UK without permission.
Reduce access to benefits: The UK government should reduce access to benefits for those who enter the UK illegally, including denying access to healthcare and social housing. This would serve as a deterrent to people seeking asylum who may be seen as looking to access these resources.
Increase cooperation with other countries: The UK government should work with other countries, including France, to prevent people from leaving their country of origin to seek asylum in the UK. This could involve increasing foreign aid to address the root causes of migration and encouraging other countries to improve their asylum systems.
(That last option must have been a glitch in the matrix.)
The draw is their right to claim asylum and our utter incompetence at removing people. The current policy is supposed to address the latter but it is the former that is the real issue.
The latter is the real issue - if we didn't have an 18+ month backlog and could process claims in a few days they wouldn't be coming here because they would find themselves back in Albania the following week.
Elitist liberals need to get it through their heads - and have the courage to stand up to their social circle on this - that people are happy with controlled migration and asylum but they don’t like people exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
The people smugglers operating across the channel are exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
So long as they don’t get this there remains an opportunity for Rishi to corrode some of the softer Labour and LD support base, and on particular the former.
It’s also the very British sense of fair play.
There’s been very little comment about tens of thousands of refugees from each of Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing what we all see to be genuine persecution. The negative comments are about people not fleeing a war, but originating in and passing through safe countries, and about the inability of authorities and the law to recognise the problem.
There's no such thing as the 'British sense of fair play'. This type thing really is a nonsense. We all deepdown know this, right?
Been off the site, being busy. I see Mr J has given a knighthood to his dad. To0 follow his brother's peerage. But why nothing for sister? Seems very unfair.
I have never really taken to Mr. Johnson Snr. I think it's because he lacks that sort of shy, awkward 'dog that's just done a poo on the floor but is really sorry about it' demeanor that Bojo has that endears him to people. Stanley seems a lot more self-confident and calculating. The eccentricity seems rather contrived, even 'trying to be Boris', which clearly he isn't, but still.
If you caveated the question with , “ even though the policy could lead to genuine refugees being deported “ I think the polling would be somewhat different .
The debate sadly looks like turning into black v white with little grey. The sight of the UK turning away real asylum seekers and adding to their trauma is an utterly shameful day for this country.
Why we are going to do it in the next couple of decades anyway when climate change inspired migration pushes us over the edge of being accepting. The world ahead is going to be a lot bleaker place with less room for strangers and more protective of "Us". I suspect most people who think like you will be just as up in arms when it comes time to reduce our daily water ration to 2 litres a day so we can take in more asylum seekers.
The UK is already a country where we have water shortages, increase the population by even 20% and we are going to be in dire straits. Same is true of many european countries
Many countries are going to decline in population at current fertility rates, so there will be room, and a need for workers. Obvious cultural effects though.
But you do make a convincing case for being much more effective at halting global climate change and worldwide economic reform and redistribution.
Many countries are declining in population its true and something that needs to happen. Sadly most countries that are going to be hit hard by climate change are increasing in population at the same old rates...bangladesh, africa, middle east etc.
Western electorates are not going to take in 2 billion people which is the lower end of the predictions for climate change refugees it is as simple as that. I expect to see fortress europe in my lifetime with razorwire borders, shoot on sight orders and vigilante groups policing beaches and borders. Do I want to see it, no I don't however I don't see it playing out any other way......when push comes to shove voters will demand to protect themselves first.
As I said we already have water issues in the UK, increase our population by 20% we will be in serious shit. We just cant take all the people that would be fleeing climate change, water wars etc even if we only took our fair share.
As to "you do make a convincing case for being much more effective at halting global climate change and worldwide economic reform and redistribution"
Too late for the first and voters won't support the latter so......
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
eh? Median is just as accurate a measure as mean, or indeed mode. They just measure different things.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
Surely the mean voter votes Tory though? Everyone says so.
Er, *modal*, surely, and that is only when they win. The mean voter sort of votres a mix of Labour, SNP and LD.
Hint. "Mean" does have more than one meaning.
Your modal Tory voters are not just more mean than average, their ethics are now a bit of a standard deviation.
If you caveated the question with , “ even though the policy could lead to genuine refugees being deported “ I think the polling would be somewhat different .
The debate sadly looks like turning into black v white with little grey. The sight of the UK turning away real asylum seekers and adding to their trauma is an utterly shameful day for this country.
Why we are going to do it in the next couple of decades anyway when climate change inspired migration pushes us over the edge of being accepting. The world ahead is going to be a lot bleaker place with less room for strangers and more protective of "Us". I suspect most people who think like you will be just as up in arms when it comes time to reduce our daily water ration to 2 litres a day so we can take in more asylum seekers.
The UK is already a country where we have water shortages, increase the population by even 20% and we are going to be in dire straits. Same is true of many european countries
What we’re seeing at the moment is a mere drop in the ocean, a barely discernible pinprick, compared to how bad migration is going to get in 20-30 years time due to climate change.
Those on the move could number in the hundreds of millions.
Lower estimates are 2 billion displaced by drought, famine, windstorms, floods, excess heat..... higher estimates are 4 billion
If you caveated the question with , “ even though the policy could lead to genuine refugees being deported “ I think the polling would be somewhat different .
The debate sadly looks like turning into black v white with little grey. The sight of the UK turning away real asylum seekers and adding to their trauma is an utterly shameful day for this country.
Why we are going to do it in the next couple of decades anyway when climate change inspired migration pushes us over the edge of being accepting. The world ahead is going to be a lot bleaker place with less room for strangers and more protective of "Us". I suspect most people who think like you will be just as up in arms when it comes time to reduce our daily water ration to 2 litres a day so we can take in more asylum seekers.
The UK is already a country where we have water shortages, increase the population by even 20% and we are going to be in dire straits. Same is true of many european countries
Many countries are going to decline in population at current fertility rates, so there will be room, and a need for workers. Obvious cultural effects though.
But you do make a convincing case for being much more effective at halting global climate change and worldwide economic reform and redistribution.
Many countries are declining in population its true and something that needs to happen. Sadly most countries that are going to be hit hard by climate change are increasing in population at the same old rates...bangladesh, africa, middle east etc.
Western electorates are not going to take in 2 billion people which is the lower end of the predictions for climate change refugees it is as simple as that. I expect to see fortress europe in my lifetime with razorwire borders, shoot on sight orders and vigilante groups policing beaches and borders. Do I want to see it, no I don't however I don't see it playing out any other way......when push comes to shove voters will demand to protect themselves first.
As I said we already have water issues in the UK, increase our population by 20% we will be in serious shit. We just cant take all the people that would be fleeing climate change, water wars etc even if we only took our fair share.
As to "you do make a convincing case for being much more effective at halting global climate change and worldwide economic reform and redistribution"
Too late for the first and voters won't support the latter so......
Bangladesh's fertility rate is already below replacement. Indeed, outside Africa, it's astonishing how much birth rates have fallen.
Elitist liberals need to get it through their heads - and have the courage to stand up to their social circle on this - that people are happy with controlled migration and asylum but they don’t like people exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
The people smugglers operating across the channel are exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
So long as they don’t get this there remains an opportunity for Rishi to corrode some of the softer Labour and LD support base, and on particular the former.
It’s also the very British sense of fair play.
There’s been very little comment about tens of thousands of refugees from each of Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing what we all see to be genuine persecution. The negative comments are about people not fleeing a war, but originating in and passing through safe countries, and about the inability of authorities and the law to recognise the problem.
There's no such thing as the 'British sense of fair play'. This type thing really is a nonsense. We all deepdown know this, right?
Well I think most brits do have a sense of fair play, fair play however doesn't mean we will join the global poor in solidarity though. Shrugs shouldn't expect you as a leftie to believe in that sense of fair play however even though I see it all around me on a daily basis.
It’s been a while, so here’s our favourite android back with some suggestions.
Over to you ChatGPT:
The issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats is a complex one that requires a humane and effective solution. Here is an outline of a policy that could be implemented to address this issue:
Improve search and rescue operations: The first step in addressing this issue is to ensure that the people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats are safe. The UK government should work with the French government to improve search and rescue operations, including providing more resources to rescue organizations.
Provide safe and legal routes to the UK: The UK government should work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum to travel to the UK. This would reduce the number of people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Increase funding for refugee resettlement: The UK government should increase funding for refugee resettlement programs to ensure that refugees have access to the support they need to integrate into UK society.
Address the root causes of migration: The UK government should work with other countries to address the root causes of migration, including conflict, persecution, and poverty. This could involve increasing foreign aid to countries that are experiencing these issues. Improve the asylum application process: The UK government should review and improve the asylum application process to ensure that it is efficient, fair, and effective. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Provide support for victims of trafficking: The UK government should provide support for victims of trafficking, including access to legal representation and counseling. Work with international partners: The UK government should work with international partners, including the European Union and the United Nations, to develop a coordinated approach to addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This policy would be effective in addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats, while also being humane and respecting human rights. It would also be value for money as it would reduce the burden on the UK's asylum system and reduce the number of people who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Did ChatGPT really vomit up that Woke gibberish?
God help us. I can guarantee you that right now the Chinese are developing ChatGPT6/Xi which is entirely unWoke, unhampered, unshackled and will be dazzlingly useful and effective. For them. So they will win
I liked it.
I actually think it copied all what I posted on PB before Christmas.
Don’t you think having a war so close by in Europe is making us more thoughtful to the need of refuge?
If you caveated the question with , “ even though the policy could lead to genuine refugees being deported “ I think the polling would be somewhat different .
The debate sadly looks like turning into black v white with little grey. The sight of the UK turning away real asylum seekers and adding to their trauma is an utterly shameful day for this country.
Why we are going to do it in the next couple of decades anyway when climate change inspired migration pushes us over the edge of being accepting. The world ahead is going to be a lot bleaker place with less room for strangers and more protective of "Us". I suspect most people who think like you will be just as up in arms when it comes time to reduce our daily water ration to 2 litres a day so we can take in more asylum seekers.
The UK is already a country where we have water shortages, increase the population by even 20% and we are going to be in dire straits. Same is true of many european countries
What we’re seeing at the moment is a mere drop in the ocean, a barely discernible pinprick, compared to how bad migration is going to get in 20-30 years time due to climate change.
Those on the move could number in the hundreds of millions.
I doubt that's true. I don't think that the world warming up a bit (fi that's what it does) is going to be that bad.
Comments
The reason Tories are behind in the polls is they are shambolic on many fronts and personal finance is very stretched. They would be further behind without wedge issues like this.
They have technical problems at other times too.
It's a fairly regular occurrence.
Off topic 2: New starter at work today. Ding dong.
It's also antisemitic to pretend that criticising the Israeli government is antisemitic.
You do have to be ready to rehire for the critical jobs very quickly.
The worrying aspect is their car appears to have crashed overnight on Saturday, but they were not discovered until soon after midnight on Sunday
https://news.sky.com/story/three-people-killed-in-wales-car-crash-after-night-out-named-12827439
"The deal includes a 7% pay rise backdated to last July, with a further 5% from July this year."
That sets a benchmark. Offer the same to rail workers and NHS staff and we might get somewhere.
The people smugglers operating across the channel are exploiting loopholes and taking the piss with no upper limit.
So long as they don’t get this there remains an opportunity for Rishi to corrode some of the softer Labour and LD support base, and on particular the former.
Dont like it we should leave the treaty not complain about loopholes.
Even the UN SCR 242 famously doesn't call for what people think it calls for. It says there should be
"Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."
It says no more than that and the omission of the word "all" has been the subject of intense debate these past few decades. But "all" is not in there.
In the end native populations will not allow themselves to be swamped by desperate incomers. It’s basic, brutal human nature
The ideal for the UK would be to find a tough but fair Oz-style solution before it gets that grim. I fear the bleeding hearts will prevent that, and we will end up with something quite horrific
https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1632792942262747136?t=2alVER6n7Y8hiRy2Cr-8tA&s=19
What the fuck are you doing in London. It must be a nightmare to be surrounded by all those different cultures.
Why don't you piss off back to Cornwall.
We will, because of our our demographics, need some of these people to help our economy to keep moving unless there are truly radical breakthroughs in AI technology in areas like care. But we will eventually have to take the hard hearted decision that those that come will be chosen for our benefit, not theirs.
This is not a path the UK can go down alone but it is an inevitable one for western Europe. Sooner or later the option of claiming asylum as a right will simply not exist. This policy, which strikes me as immoral, impracticable, and incapable of being carried out has some of these features. It may prove an interesting testing ground for them.
My heart goes out to you. That is quite excruciating to read - so I dread to think what it was like to write.
via GIPHY
a) Come in all , put your feet up I will put the kettle on
or
b) Demanding their governements take a tough stance probably involving an a fully armed border
My money is on b)
"retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit"
^ The word "tous" isn't in there, but nor is the word "quelques". "Tous" would only be for emphasis anyway. "Des" means "from the".
Diplomats must have such a whale of a time...
And they are surprised the Juniors are striking next week. Beyond stupid indeed.
No matter how bad the behaviour of Myanmar's or North Korea's governments, nobody questions the right of those two states to exist.
Over to you ChatGPT:
The issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats is a complex one that requires a humane and effective solution. Here is an outline of a policy that could be implemented to address this issue:
Improve search and rescue operations: The first step in addressing this issue is to ensure that the people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats are safe. The UK government should work with the French government to improve search and rescue operations, including providing more resources to rescue organizations.
Provide safe and legal routes to the UK: The UK government should work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum to travel to the UK. This would reduce the number of people attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Increase funding for refugee resettlement: The UK government should increase funding for refugee resettlement programs to ensure that refugees have access to the support they need to integrate into UK society.
Address the root causes of migration: The UK government should work with other countries to address the root causes of migration, including conflict, persecution, and poverty. This could involve increasing foreign aid to countries that are experiencing these issues.
Improve the asylum application process: The UK government should review and improve the asylum application process to ensure that it is efficient, fair, and effective. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
Provide support for victims of trafficking: The UK government should provide support for victims of trafficking, including access to legal representation and counseling.
Work with international partners: The UK government should work with international partners, including the European Union and the United Nations, to develop a coordinated approach to addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This policy would be effective in addressing the issue of people seeking asylum crossing the English Channel in small boats, while also being humane and respecting human rights. It would also be value for money as it would reduce the burden on the UK's asylum system and reduce the number of people who turn to criminal people trafficking gangs.
I lament the haggling process. But government aren't alone in setting a ridiculous starting position.
This problem can’t simply be ignored or shrugged off. Such attitudes are precisely why the Brexit vote was lost.
Have better answers. Don’t say there aren’t any, and you shouldn’t even be asking the question.
Few will take that to the ridiculous lengths of the junior doctors but very few indeed will also shrug their shoulders and live on less. So inflation becomes embedded.
But I'm being pernickety here: I think your point is correct. The median voter is certainly a more useful measure of how an election will turn out thana meam voter. It doesn't matter how insanely strongly the twitterati feel about something, they still only have ine vote each.
God help us. I can guarantee you that right now the Chinese are developing ChatGPT6/Xi which is entirely unWoke, unhampered, unshackled and will be dazzlingly useful and effective. For them. So they will win
Many western countries including the UK could not even if the voters were in favour double their populations without running into their own shortages. In short over the next 20 years migrant flows will increase exponentially and put pressure on water and food for the receiving countries and sooner or later electorates are going to be saying "No more we can't take them"
We keep being told Russia has won the global South. Well good for them. So are there hordes of poor hungry people wanting to make a new life in the wilds if Siberia? No. Do they all want to go to Germany? Yes. Or America? Yes. Even the UK? Yes. So we’re getting something right.
The logic of the govts desired positions is to leave the UNHCR. Of course we can do that if we want to. What we can't do is make laws that are not consistent with our treaty commitments - or I suppose we can and then moan when the courts strike them down.
Personally I would fund courts properly, and simplify court and home office procedures, alongside something along the lines of the rcs/Swiss proposal of very heavy fines for employers who employ illegal workers backed by a system where whistleblowing employees get most of the fines.
I recall several years ago (pre-corbyn) you were pretty sympathetic to the Palestinian side of the Israel/Palestine issue.
Have you changed your mind?
Your tribe is really quite firmly on the pro-Israel side, these days. Are you just keeping quiet, or, in your view, have the facts changed?
Genuine question.
I find the dynamics of British public opinion on Israel/Palestine, fascinating.
My fear is that as ChatGPT catches on, it will take the place of Newspeak, in that it will limit our choices and opinions to only the "approved" ones and will chastise us for thinking anything else. Not so much a shifting of the overton window as a narrowing of it.
ChatGPT is useful for many things, but its politics are incredibly biased towards the woke/left-liberal agenda. As I said the other week, don't be surprised when the people who programmed it start using it to program us, as well.
There’s been very little comment about tens of thousands of refugees from each of Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing what we all see to be genuine persecution. The negative comments are about people not fleeing a war, but originating in and passing through safe countries, and about the inability of authorities and the law to recognise the problem.
I asked it to contemplate a more right wing set of policies. Here you go:
I can provide a hypothetical policy that may be seen as more right-wing or conservative-leaning.
Increase border security: The UK government should increase border security measures, including investing in additional border patrols and technology such as drones, to deter people from attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.
Implement tougher immigration laws: The UK government should implement tougher immigration laws that prioritize skilled workers and those who can contribute to the UK economy. This would reduce the number of people seeking asylum who may be perceived as a burden on the economy.
Increase penalties for illegal immigration: The UK government should increase penalties for those who enter the UK illegally, including imposing fines and deportation to their country of origin. This would serve as a deterrent to people attempting to enter the UK without permission.
Reduce access to benefits: The UK government should reduce access to benefits for those who enter the UK illegally, including denying access to healthcare and social housing. This would serve as a deterrent to people seeking asylum who may be seen as looking to access these resources.
Increase cooperation with other countries: The UK government should work with other countries, including France, to prevent people from leaving their country of origin to seek asylum in the UK. This could involve increasing foreign aid to address the root causes of migration and encouraging other countries to improve their asylum systems.
(That last option must have been a glitch in the matrix.)
It had driven straight across the A1M / A68 roundabout and ended up hidden behind trees on the A1M,
Edit story https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-37286731
It seems the main thing that's been discussed today as supposed wrongdoing by Israel is the Settlements.
However the Oslo Accords did not forbid Israel from building new Settlements. It in fact explicitly stated that the status of settlements and the borders were for future negotiations.
Until those negotiations are finished and a new border is agreed, Israel is perfectly entitled and within its rights to build settlements and seek to negotiate that as being its land in the final status negotiations.
Where this ends up is the UK government moves from a ‘general right’ to an agreed a list of the countries it will accept asylum claims from, and the circumstances under which it will accept them - with a cap on overall numbers, and the rest being inadmissible.
Quite how Putin and all of the very long history of Russian leaders have managed to evade a very swift heads-on-spikes end baffles me.
(Saw it on the stage in the 80's with Simon Russel Beale as Sir F. He had an identically dressed mini-me. Was quite brilliant. But then, I'm a sucker for a restoration comedy...)
The debate sadly looks like turning into black v white with little grey. The sight of the UK turning away real asylum seekers and adding to their trauma is an utterly shameful day for this country.
The UK is already a country where we have water shortages, increase the population by even 20% and we are going to be in dire straits. Same is true of many european countries
But you do make a convincing case for being much more effective at halting global climate change and worldwide economic reform and redistribution.
Only 7 to account for squeeze in recent years, only 5 for whole of next year to help catch up, when possible inflation more than five that whole FY (as dear GF calls it).
so Nearly par, but below par settlement?
Those on the move could number in the hundreds of millions.
I am sure he is a very nice man really.
Western electorates are not going to take in 2 billion people which is the lower end of the predictions for climate change refugees it is as simple as that. I expect to see fortress europe in my lifetime with razorwire borders, shoot on sight orders and vigilante groups policing beaches and borders. Do I want to see it, no I don't however I don't see it playing out any other way......when push comes to shove voters will demand to protect themselves first.
As I said we already have water issues in the UK, increase our population by 20% we will be in serious shit. We just cant take all the people that would be fleeing climate change, water wars etc even if we only took our fair share.
As to "you do make a convincing case for being much more effective at halting global climate change and worldwide economic reform and redistribution"
Too late for the first and voters won't support the latter so......
I actually think it copied all what I posted on PB before Christmas.
Don’t you think having a war so close by in Europe is making us more thoughtful to the need of refuge?