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.
Bangladesh was an assumption but its still 2. I didn't check substitute india then
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.
Yes but Boris now has more time to travel again after being busy as PM and restricted by Covid.
I assume the transportation mode doesn't matter, so cross-channel illegal swimmers would also be banned. So would those who arrive in gliders, or hot air balloons, or whatever.
Or am I wrong about that?
Illegals sometimes arrrive in the US in shipping containers. (I think the cost per person is typically about 30K.)
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?
I don't agree. You've made the point before that there is no such thing as national character traits. I think this can only true inasmuch as, for example, a Japanese baby probably isn't inherently polite and conformist due to his genes but is made so by cultural norms. And national cultural norms are very much a thing.
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.
I’m a Depeche modal Tory.
Is that one of the rare ones who follow a Policy of Truth?
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.
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.
Christ, TikTok must be more addictive than I thought.
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.
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour 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.
Your modal Tory voters are not just more mean than average, their ethics are now a bit of a standard deviation.
I’m a Depeche modal Tory.
Is that one of the rare ones who follow a Policy of Truth?
No, but he does think it's Construction Time Again.
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
I don't think they're becoming a problem. The problem I see is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
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.
and 'modal' is also a viscose textile a bit like cotton and largely sourced from bamboo!
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?
How would you prefer I write it?
The average man in the street has a load of sympathy for those fleeing war and persecution, in countries such as Ukraine and Hong Kong - but not for someone from safe Albania who pays a smuggler to get him half way across Europe to safe France, then hoping to land on a beach somewhere and disappear into the UK black economy?
That we can see it’s fair that immigrants should contribute to the economy by means of a good job or potential, and that we shouldn’t be importing people who are a drain on the country unless they’re genuinely fleeing war and persecution?
That the current framework makes it difficult to distinguish between asylum seekers and economic migrants, hampered by the fact that it’s almost impossible to actually deport anyone?
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.
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
I don't think they're becoming a problem. The problem I see is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
I certainly am not advocating the measures suggest by the loonier greens out there, I don't think a cure will even be attempted merely tinkering around the edges such as we are now because when push comes to shove governments will make sure voters don't see any drop in living standards and hope other countries will do enough to stop it. It is not going to be stopped but will be ameliorated enough to make some countries still habitable by such things as renewable energy etc. I fully expect those countries however to look after their own and hang the rest out to dry
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.
So now Israel ISN'T oppressing the Palestinians? That's great. Lead story on the news tonight then, I'd have thought. I'll be sure to tune in.
Beau of the Fifth Column, over on YouTube, made a comment that might have US presidential election implications: that Trump has not been on Fox News since September.
How would this relative lack of visibility affect his chances of the nomination?
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.
I’m a Depeche modal Tory.
Is that one of the rare ones who follow a Policy of Truth?
One of HYUFD's Master and Servant Tories perhaps....
Not sure OGH has got this right. 30% of Labour supporters favour this and 39% of Lib Dem voters. I'm not sure these laws would be the right ones but if he is seen to deal with the boats issue it'll be a big positive for him.
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.
I’m a Depeche modal Tory.
Is that one of the rare ones who follow a Policy of Truth?
It’s just a Question of Time before everyone else gets there.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved 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.
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
I don't think they're becoming a problem. The problem I see is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
I certainly am not advocating the measures suggest by the loonier greens out there, I don't think a cure will even be attempted merely tinkering around the edges such as we are now because when push comes to shove governments will make sure voters don't see any drop in living standards and hope other countries will do enough to stop it. It is not going to be stopped but will be ameliorated enough to make some countries still habitable by such things as renewable energy etc. I fully expect those countries however to look after their own and hang the rest out to dry
Tinkering around the edges is fine. Any actual cure would probably be so wrong-headed as to be disastrous. We can only see through the lense of our times. It is always a very distorted lense.
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.
Christ, TikTok must be more addictive than I thought.
Many a salty seaman has been lost upon the accursed shores of TikTok.
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
I don't think they're becoming a problem. The problem I see is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
I certainly am not advocating the measures suggest by the loonier greens out there, I don't think a cure will even be attempted merely tinkering around the edges such as we are now because when push comes to shove governments will make sure voters don't see any drop in living standards and hope other countries will do enough to stop it. It is not going to be stopped but will be ameliorated enough to make some countries still habitable by such things as renewable energy etc. I fully expect those countries however to look after their own and hang the rest out to dry
Tinkering around the edges is fine. Any actual cure would probably be so wrong-headed as to be disastrous. We can only see through the lense of our times. It is always a very distorted lense.
Well to you at least but then you have always looked at things through your conspiracy theory goggles.....who can forget your theories on MH71 and ivermectin
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
Edit:
It begat this, which you surely must have heard of:
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.
Bangladesh was an assumption but its still 2. I didn't check substitute india then
India's 2.05, barely higher.
Edit - China of course is off a cliff, a mere 1.28.
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Do you mean that you 'couldn't' care less? 'Could' care less - means you do care, though you prefer to be imprecise about the degree to which you care.
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.
I’m a Depeche modal Tory.
Is that one of the rare ones who follow a Policy of Truth?
It’s just a Question of Time before everyone else gets there.
When it comes to pop puns, we Just Can't Get Enough.
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
I don't think they're becoming a problem. The problem I see is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
I certainly am not advocating the measures suggest by the loonier greens out there, I don't think a cure will even be attempted merely tinkering around the edges such as we are now because when push comes to shove governments will make sure voters don't see any drop in living standards and hope other countries will do enough to stop it. It is not going to be stopped but will be ameliorated enough to make some countries still habitable by such things as renewable energy etc. I fully expect those countries however to look after their own and hang the rest out to dry
Tinkering around the edges is fine. Any actual cure would probably be so wrong-headed as to be disastrous. We can only see through the lense of our times. It is always a very distorted lense.
Well to you at least but then you have always looked at things through your conspiracy theory goggles.....who can forget your theories on MH71 and ivermectin
Not sure about forgetting them, but inventing them certainly. I've never typed the word 'ivermectin' on this forum.
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Or 'bigoted' even. Tell us again why Labour did so badly last time....
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
The problem I have with all this is that a lot has happened already, without any revolt of the 'native populations'. The pattern of the post war era is that any revolt of the native population gets killed off politically. Won't that pattern just keep on repeating itself? These issues (opposition to asylum seekers, etc) keep on being associated with an old, dying demographic. You never see any young people taking on these issues. Or if they do, it is someone politically toxic like Tommy Robinson. Meanwhile, if you look at the UK, and in particular the cities where things happen, like London, Birmingham and Manchester... it keeps getting more and more multi-racial and diverse. I feel like the current conservative party policy, in this as with a lot of issues, is just the rage against the dying of the light.
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Or 'bigoted' even. Tell us again why Labour did so badly last time....
North London hand wringers maybe explains the lack of Tory success in these parts too.....
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.
Bangladesh was an assumption but its still 2. I didn't check substitute india then
India's 2.05, barely higher.
Edit - China of course is off a cliff, a mere 1.28.
You mean india...the one that has just surpassed china as the largest nation in the world...that india?
Forgive me for saying but how much of the falling reproductive rate is just down to places like india and bangladesh not collecting proper data. I would suspect that in both countries a lot of births never get registered
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved 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
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.
Bangladesh was an assumption but its still 2. I didn't check substitute india then
India's 2.05, barely higher.
Edit - China of course is off a cliff, a mere 1.28.
You mean india...the one that has just surpassed china as the largest nation in the world...that india?
Forgive me for saying but how much of the falling reproductive rate is just down to places like india and bangladesh not collecting proper data. I would suspect that in both countries a lot of births never get registered
A growing population doesn't require a high fertility rate. A reduced death rate will do. Lowered fertility rates will lead to smaller populations but there is a significant lag to it.
China's population was still going up as recently as last year. Indeed, it may still be doing so.
Edit - you are correct that many births in India are not registered. However, I believe the figure I quoted adjusted for that.
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Do you mean that you 'couldn't' care less? 'Could' care less - means you do care, though you prefer to be imprecise about the degree to which you care.
Sorry just spotted typo, too late to edit. Should be “I couldn’t care less”
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Or 'bigoted' even. Tell us again why Labour did so badly last time....
I have no idea what you are on about now. Dismissing millions with lazy cliches like “north London hand wringers” is just stupid (and Sandy isn’t, far from it).
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Or 'bigoted' even. Tell us again why Labour did so badly last time....
North London hand-wringers maybe explains the lack of Tory success in these parts too.....
North London hand-wringers are never going to vote Tory, whatever lovely cuddly term you chose instead....
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
I don't think they're becoming a problem. The problem I see is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
I certainly am not advocating the measures suggest by the loonier greens out there, I don't think a cure will even be attempted merely tinkering around the edges such as we are now because when push comes to shove governments will make sure voters don't see any drop in living standards and hope other countries will do enough to stop it. It is not going to be stopped but will be ameliorated enough to make some countries still habitable by such things as renewable energy etc. I fully expect those countries however to look after their own and hang the rest out to dry
Tinkering around the edges is fine. Any actual cure would probably be so wrong-headed as to be disastrous. We can only see through the lense of our times. It is always a very distorted lense.
Well to you at least but then you have always looked at things through your conspiracy theory goggles.....who can forget your theories on MH71 and ivermectin
Not sure about forgetting them, but inventing them certainly. I've never typed the word 'ivermectin' on this forum.
Ah yes sorry you were the zinc guy, your swallowing every propaganda line from russia on MH71 was still correct though
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Or 'bigoted' even. Tell us again why Labour did so badly last time....
North London hand-wringers maybe explains the lack of Tory success in these parts too.....
North London hand-wringers are never going to vote Tory, whatever lovely cuddly term you chose instead....
Nor are reactionary yokels going to vote Labour, whatever lovely cuddly term one chooses instead........
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
The problem I have with all this is that a lot has happened already, without any revolt of the 'native populations'. The pattern of the post war era is that any revolt of the native population gets killed off politically. Won't that pattern just keep on repeating itself? These issues (opposition to asylum seekers, etc) keep on being associated with an old, dying demographic. You never see any young people taking on these issues. Or if they do, it is someone politically toxic like Tommy Robinson. Meanwhile, if you look at the UK, and in particular the cities where things happen, like London, Birmingham and Manchester... it keeps getting more and more multi-racial and diverse. I feel like the current conservative party policy, in this as with a lot of issues, is just the rage against the dying of the light.
Current conservative policy is aimed at the boats. Illegal migration as it is.
Legal Inward migration has never been higher, IIRC,and high levels of inward migration have been unofficial govt policy from the current date going back to new labour in spite of their protestations otherwise.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
Pretty sure Mrs S won’t have watched it either.
It’s just a jump to the left…
"It's astounding, time is fleeting, madness takes its toll."
Going to the ?Prince Charles? theatre to see it with my then-gf was brilliant back in 1991. You had loads of people in drag, many like us in 'normal' clothes, all singing along to the tunes.
I can't sing, and no-one minded. It was effing superb.
I've just looked it up, and it still seems they occasionally do it still. In the evenings occasionally, when I thought it was every Wednesday afternoon. But such memories...
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.
Bangladesh was an assumption but its still 2. I didn't check substitute india then
India's 2.05, barely higher.
Edit - China of course is off a cliff, a mere 1.28.
You mean india...the one that has just surpassed china as the largest nation in the world...that india?
Forgive me for saying but how much of the falling reproductive rate is just down to places like india and bangladesh not collecting proper data. I would suspect that in both countries a lot of births never get registered
A growing population doesn't require a high fertility rate. A reduced death rate will do. Lowered fertility rates will lead to smaller populations but there is a significant lag to it.
China's population was still going up as recently as last year. Indeed, it may still be doing so.
Edit - you are correct that many births in India are not registered. However, I believe the figure I quoted adjusted for that.
While true what you say, it still remains the world population is increasing.....we have 2 to 3 decades before many can no longer live where they are and we get that migration tsunami
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Or 'bigoted' even. Tell us again why Labour did so badly last time....
North London hand-wringers maybe explains the lack of Tory success in these parts too.....
North London hand-wringers are never going to vote Tory, whatever lovely cuddly term you chose instead....
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Or 'bigoted' even. Tell us again why Labour did so badly last time....
Brexit Labour back up North went to the Tories, because soft southern London Labour produced a hand wringers charter of a manifesto?
hand wringers? Even that doesn’t make sense because hand wringer is fake sorrow with no real attempt to actually help. Your post was actually rubbish Sandy, if you mean soft southern bleeding heart metro-numpties, then just be bluff and come out and say that.
Just to finish off on Estonia, a significant victory for the liberal Reform Party, winning 37 seats in the Riigikogu. A real setback for the conservative EKRE who lost seats and vote share and a disaster for Centre, another liberal party but one whose more pro-Russian sentiments went down like a lump of cold sick in the current climate.
In its place came another liberal party, E200, which picked up 14 seats in the new Riigikogu.
Reform and E200 can in fact govern with a small majority but it seems likely they will be joined by the Social Democrats.
Over here and a week after Sunak's triumph in Northern Ireland, we have a Redfield & Wilton poll showing the 27-point Labour lead having slumped, tanked or crashed to just 26 points. It seems whatever poll move there may have been early last week to the Conservatives, it's not been sustained.
To be fair, Government approval numbers and favourability numbers for Sunak have improved and in the Starmer vs Sunak preferred Prime Minister polling, last week's 41-32 is this week's 41-35 so a small but clear improvement.
Better news also in that 5% of the 209 Conservative GE vote would once again vote Conservative - 19% will switch to Labour and let's not forget if 45% nationally voted Conservative last time, a fifth of that is 9% of the overall electorate. 15% are Don't Knows and 10% will bck Reform.
Looking at the England sub-sample, Labour leads 52-26, a swing of 20.5% from the 2019 election. That suggests Sevenoaks, the 295th most marginal Conservative seat, would be lost leaving a rump Conservative parliamentary party of round 80-00 seats.
I'd actually argue, however, this is a better poll for the Government than last week's albeit the headline VI has hardly moved at all - the underlying and supplementary data is better though that's damning with faint phrase to some extent.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
Pretty sure Mrs S won’t have watched it either.
It’s just a jump to the left…
"It's astounding, time is fleeting, madness takes its toll."
Going to the ?Prince Charles? theatre to see it with my then-gf was brilliant back in 1991. You had loads of people in drag, many like us in 'normal' clothes, all singing along to the tunes.
I can't sing, and no-one minded. It was effing superb.
I've just looked it up, and it still seems they occasionally do it still. In the evenings occasionally, when I thought it was every Wednesday afternoon. But such memories...
I remember a whole bunch of us from VI form going to a special screening at the local multiplex, must have been in 1996. All sorts of mad outfits worn, alongside lots of bad singing and ad-libbing the jokes.
One of those little cultural moments of youth.
Also same year that Trainspotting was in the cinema, which I think I saw about five times, and with two different girlfriends!
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Or 'bigoted' even. Tell us again why Labour did so badly last time....
North London hand-wringers maybe explains the lack of Tory success in these parts too.....
North London hand-wringers are never going to vote Tory, whatever lovely cuddly term you chose instead....
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Or 'bigoted' even. Tell us again why Labour did so badly last time....
North London hand-wringers maybe explains the lack of Tory success in these parts too.....
North London hand-wringers are never going to vote Tory, whatever lovely cuddly term you chose instead....
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?
One if these days you might see what an unpleasant patronizing creep you are. Hilarious the way you try putting down a dyed in the wool Labour voter.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
Or 'bigoted' even. Tell us again why Labour did so badly last time....
North London hand-wringers maybe explains the lack of Tory success in these parts too.....
North London hand-wringers are never going to vote Tory, whatever lovely cuddly term you chose instead....
Home Counties ones used to. But aren't anymore.
I suspect outside of by-elections, they will return to Rishi in good numbers, when push comes to shove. The alternative is Ed Davey, FFS....
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.
Bangladesh was an assumption but its still 2. I didn't check substitute india then
India's 2.05, barely higher.
Edit - China of course is off a cliff, a mere 1.28.
You mean india...the one that has just surpassed china as the largest nation in the world...that india?
Forgive me for saying but how much of the falling reproductive rate is just down to places like india and bangladesh not collecting proper data. I would suspect that in both countries a lot of births never get registered
A growing population doesn't require a high fertility rate. A reduced death rate will do. Lowered fertility rates will lead to smaller populations but there is a significant lag to it.
China's population was still going up as recently as last year. Indeed, it may still be doing so.
Edit - you are correct that many births in India are not registered. However, I believe the figure I quoted adjusted for that.
While true what you say, it still remains the world population is increasing.....we have 2 to 3 decades before many can no longer live where they are and we get that migration tsunami
Which is also true - assuming climate change doesn't also lead to dramatically increased mortality rates.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
Pretty sure Mrs S won’t have watched it either.
It’s just a jump to the left…
"It's astounding, time is fleeting, madness takes its toll."
Going to the ?Prince Charles? theatre to see it with my then-gf was brilliant back in 1991. You had loads of people in drag, many like us in 'normal' clothes, all singing along to the tunes.
I can't sing, and no-one minded. It was effing superb.
I've just looked it up, and it still seems they occasionally do it still. In the evenings occasionally, when I thought it was every Wednesday afternoon. But such memories...
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
Pretty sure Mrs S won’t have watched it either.
It’s just a jump to the left…
"It's astounding, time is fleeting, madness takes its toll."
Going to the ?Prince Charles? theatre to see it with my then-gf was brilliant back in 1991. You had loads of people in drag, many like us in 'normal' clothes, all singing along to the tunes.
I can't sing, and no-one minded. It was effing superb.
I've just looked it up, and it still seems they occasionally do it still. In the evenings occasionally, when I thought it was every Wednesday afternoon. But such memories...
I remember a whole bunch of us from VI form going to a special screening at the local multiplex, must have been in 1996. All sorts of mad outfits worn, alongside lots of bad singing and ad-libbing the jokes. One of those little cultural moments of youth.
Yes. It's not something I've thought about much since but it was magic. Great afternoons.
In fact, I've noticed there's one on the 24th, the day after my birthday. Can I relive my youth, thirty years on? And drag Mars J along as well? Although nowadays it does not involve a quick trip along the tube from East London, but arranging babysitting, trains, hotels, etc, etc. The perils of responsibility...)
(Actually, Mrs J probably won't need dragging... But will I be in drag, for the first time ever...?)
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
The problem I have with all this is that a lot has happened already, without any revolt of the 'native populations'. The pattern of the post war era is that any revolt of the native population gets killed off politically. Won't that pattern just keep on repeating itself? These issues (opposition to asylum seekers, etc) keep on being associated with an old, dying demographic. You never see any young people taking on these issues. Or if they do, it is someone politically toxic like Tommy Robinson. Meanwhile, if you look at the UK, and in particular the cities where things happen, like London, Birmingham and Manchester... it keeps getting more and more multi-racial and diverse. I feel like the current conservative party policy, in this as with a lot of issues, is just the rage against the dying of the light.
Although Brexit may be seen as an example of a revolt of the native populations.
On topic, I'm totally confused. Between April and June 2022 the Nationality and Borders Act came into effect. This was Priti Patel's legislation, designed among other things to reform and improve the processing of asylum seekers and refugees, and stop abuses of the system. Part 2 of the Act is entitled Asylum, and there's lots of it. This was trailed throughout 2021 as the solution to the small boats crisis, tightening up on asylum claims, improving processing and other aspects of the asylum system.
It would appear then, that the huge effort put into the 2022 Act has now been deemed a waste of time in respect of the asylum system and the boat crossings, if it is to be believed that more legislation is coming tomorrow. This doesn't give me any confidence - what a waste of time. For anybody interested in what was put on the statute book just nine months ago, the contents of Part 2 of the Act can be seen here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/36/contents
Legislating again so quickly? We're being taken for a ride, aren't we?
Not sure OGH has got this right. 30% of Labour supporters favour this and 39% of Lib Dem voters. I'm not sure these laws would be the right ones but if he is seen to deal with the boats issue it'll be a big positive for him.
He has, partly. The legislation is unimportant in and of itself if it doesn't provide the necessary deterrence. If the boats keep coming and the refugees keep landing in front of holidaymakers this summer in spite of the legislation, Sunak and Braverman's empty rhetoric will be fully exposed.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
My late wife loved TRHPS .. it left me unimpressed. She was also absolutely devoted to "Animal" in the Muppits. Lord knows why. God bless her.
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
I don't think they're becoming a problem. The problem I see is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
I certainly am not advocating the measures suggest by the loonier greens out there, I don't think a cure will even be attempted merely tinkering around the edges such as we are now because when push comes to shove governments will make sure voters don't see any drop in living standards and hope other countries will do enough to stop it. It is not going to be stopped but will be ameliorated enough to make some countries still habitable by such things as renewable energy etc. I fully expect those countries however to look after their own and hang the rest out to dry
Tinkering around the edges is fine. Any actual cure would probably be so wrong-headed as to be disastrous. We can only see through the lense of our times. It is always a very distorted lense.
Well to you at least but then you have always looked at things through your conspiracy theory goggles.....who can forget your theories on MH71 and ivermectin
Not sure about forgetting them, but inventing them certainly. I've never typed the word 'ivermectin' on this forum.
On topic, I'm totally confused. Between April and June 2022 the Nationality and Borders Act came into effect. This was Priti Patel's legislation, designed among other things to reform and improve the processing of asylum seekers and refugees, and stop abuses of the system. Part 2 of the Act is entitled Asylum, and there's lots of it. This was trailed throughout 2021 as the solution to the small boats crisis, tightening up on asylum claims, improving processing and other aspects of the asylum system.
It would appear then, that the huge effort put into the 2022 Act has now been deemed a waste of time in respect of the asylum system and the boat crossings, if it is to be believed that more legislation is coming tomorrow. This doesn't give me any confidence - what a waste of time. For anybody interested in what was put on the statute book just nine months ago, the contents of Part 2 of the Act can be seen here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/36/contents
Legislating again so quickly? We're being taken for a ride, aren't we?
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
My late wife loved TRHPS .. it left me unimpressed. She was also absolutely devoted to "Animal" in the Muppits. Lord knows why. God bless her.
Coincidentally enough, Mrs J's nickname at one place was Animal, after the Muppet's drummer. My nickname for her is 'Muppet'. I bought her a Lego Animal for her last birthday, which is now on display underneath our TV.
(I won't say what her nickname for me is. Except it isn't, but should be: "Get in the shower before bed you smelly oik!")
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
Pretty sure Mrs S won’t have watched it either.
It’s just a jump to the left…
"It's astounding, time is fleeting, madness takes its toll."
Going to the ?Prince Charles? theatre to see it with my then-gf was brilliant back in 1991. You had loads of people in drag, many like us in 'normal' clothes, all singing along to the tunes.
I can't sing, and no-one minded. It was effing superb.
I've just looked it up, and it still seems they occasionally do it still. In the evenings occasionally, when I thought it was every Wednesday afternoon. But such memories...
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 think it's touching that this whole sub-thread of discussion assumes that desperate people in search of food, forced to search for refuge after experiencing repeated climate-induced crop-failures, will be making their way to Britain, a country that has been reliant on food imports for centuries, but that is steadily losing the ability to pay for imports.
There's a real risk of increasing numbers of poorer Britons being priced out of meat protein by growing demand on the global market from China. And it's the sort of problem that will only deteriorate as the economy continues to stagnate.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
Pretty sure Mrs S won’t have watched it either.
It’s just a jump to the left…
"It's astounding, time is fleeting, madness takes its toll."
Going to the ?Prince Charles? theatre to see it with my then-gf was brilliant back in 1991. You had loads of people in drag, many like us in 'normal' clothes, all singing along to the tunes.
I can't sing, and no-one minded. It was effing superb.
I've just looked it up, and it still seems they occasionally do it still. In the evenings occasionally, when I thought it was every Wednesday afternoon. But such memories...
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
My aunt is in it!
Wow. May I ask in which role, if that isn't getting too personal?
Essentially upgraded tech leads to more misidentification of things. Not a surprise. Early radar had the same issues.
Keep waiting for the big UAP reveal boys, it’s coming…*
*Just after commercial nuclear fusion. Maybe.**
**I think commercial fusion 100x more likely.
Yes "just after we upgraded our system it suddenly started detecting loads of weird stuff" rarely makes you think "wow the new system must be much better at detecting things and we're being visited by aliens who were technologically advanced enough to hide from our detection tech version 7.1 but not from 7.2"
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
My aunt is in it!
Wow. May I ask in which role, if that isn't getting too personal?
She is one of the dancers. She was a dancer and actor, the only cool member of my family and much missed.
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
I don't think they're becoming a problem. The problem I see is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
I certainly am not advocating the measures suggest by the loonier greens out there, I don't think a cure will even be attempted merely tinkering around the edges such as we are now because when push comes to shove governments will make sure voters don't see any drop in living standards and hope other countries will do enough to stop it. It is not going to be stopped but will be ameliorated enough to make some countries still habitable by such things as renewable energy etc. I fully expect those countries however to look after their own and hang the rest out to dry
Tinkering around the edges is fine. Any actual cure would probably be so wrong-headed as to be disastrous. We can only see through the lense of our times. It is always a very distorted lense.
Well to you at least but then you have always looked at things through your conspiracy theory goggles.....who can forget your theories on MH71 and ivermectin
Not sure about forgetting them, but inventing them certainly. I've never typed the word 'ivermectin' on this forum.
Ah yes sorry you were the zinc guy, your swallowing every propaganda line from russia on MH71 was still correct though
Apology accepted.
It's not a conspiracy theory - it would be totally unprecedented historically if we did not see things through a distorted lense, as they did when they wore lead make-up, or when they thought the earth was flat, or when they thought that we would all be driving nuclear powered cars. It is difficult to discern where we have really progressed and built on the knowledge of previous generations, and what are just the vulgar excesses of our age. I believe that most climate alarmism belongs in the latter category.
Just seen a round-up of Michelle Donellan doing the morning press round really struggling on small boats and knighthood for Stanley. At one point she said "I'm not the immigration minister, I'm the SofS for Education. At least the interviewer was kind enough not to say "I know, unbelievable isn't it?"
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
My aunt is in it!
Wow. May I ask in which role, if that isn't getting too personal?
She is one of the dancers. She was a dancer and actor, the only cool member of my family and much missed.
In the movie along with Biggins, Meatloaf and the others ?
Just seen a round-up of Michelle Donellan doing the morning press round really struggling on small boats and knighthood for Stanley. At one point she said "I'm not the immigration minister, I'm the SofS for Education. At least the interviewer was kind enough not to say "I know, unbelievable isn't it?"
At least she wasn't asked why her department continues to employ a chief of OFSTED who literally doesn't know what safeguarding is.
Not sure OGH has got this right. 30% of Labour supporters favour this and 39% of Lib Dem voters. I'm not sure these laws would be the right ones but if he is seen to deal with the boats issue it'll be a big positive for him.
Not necessarily. I was one of the LDs in this survey mildly in favour (though don't expect it to be practicable), but no way am I voting for the corrupt mendacious shower of shite that we have in government.
I'm not sure if it's the time of the season (as some zombie once sang) but there are some extraordinary polls about.
In Iceland, the Independence Party which has dominated Icelandic politics since the dissolution of the union with Denmark in 1944, is now second in the polls behind the Social Democrats.
Conversely, in Denmark, the Social Democrats are on just 18.6% in the latest Voxmeter poll, their lowest showing in more than a decade and if repeated in a General Election would be the worst result since 1915. They led with the Socialist Folkeparti in second and Venstre in a tie for third with the Liberal Alliance.
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
I don't think they're becoming a problem. The problem I see is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
I certainly am not advocating the measures suggest by the loonier greens out there, I don't think a cure will even be attempted merely tinkering around the edges such as we are now because when push comes to shove governments will make sure voters don't see any drop in living standards and hope other countries will do enough to stop it. It is not going to be stopped but will be ameliorated enough to make some countries still habitable by such things as renewable energy etc. I fully expect those countries however to look after their own and hang the rest out to dry
Tinkering around the edges is fine. Any actual cure would probably be so wrong-headed as to be disastrous. We can only see through the lense of our times. It is always a very distorted lense.
Well to you at least but then you have always looked at things through your conspiracy theory goggles.....who can forget your theories on MH71 and ivermectin
Not sure about forgetting them, but inventing them certainly. I've never typed the word 'ivermectin' on this forum.
Ah yes sorry you were the zinc guy, your swallowing every propaganda line from russia on MH71 was still correct though
Apology accepted.
It's not a conspiracy theory - it would be totally unprecedented historically if we did not see things through a distorted lense, as they did when they wore lead make-up, or when they thought the earth was flat, or when they thought that we would all be driving nuclear powered cars. It is difficult to discern where we have really progressed and built on the knowledge of previous generations, and what are just the vulgar excesses of our age. I believe that most climate alarmism belongs in the latter category.
What has that got to do with your nasty stupidity over MH17?
Just seen a round-up of Michelle Donellan doing the morning press round really struggling on small boats and knighthood for Stanley. At one point she said "I'm not the immigration minister, I'm the SofS for Education. At least the interviewer was kind enough not to say "I know, unbelievable isn't it?"
At least she wasn't asked why her department continues to employ a chief of OFSTED who literally doesn't know what safeguarding is.
I encountered, in my early days in the city, a derivatives trader who was unaware that
- the pricing systems used the Bank of England base rate as a parameter - the Bank of England base rate had changed yesterday
He was therefore somewhat surprised that all the pricing numbers had changed. And rang me to complain.
For context - this is similar to a fisherman being unaware that water is wet.
Just seen a round-up of Michelle Donellan doing the morning press round really struggling on small boats and knighthood for Stanley. At one point she said "I'm not the immigration minister, I'm the SofS for Education. At least the interviewer was kind enough not to say "I know, unbelievable isn't it?"
It's never a good sign when politicians try to fall back on, in essence, whinging that they are not being asked the questions they want to be asked. If you are doing the press round you should be provided the lines to take about big issues of the day, or be able to think on your feet a little bit. I think they are so used to be able to avoid awkward questions now that they rarely get the practice of how to deal with it.
Here's one for you: the UK nearly invented the Integrated Circuit, based on ideas developed in 1952. The reasons the project was dropped seems all too familiar, 80 years later.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
Pretty sure Mrs S won’t have watched it either.
It’s just a jump to the left…
"It's astounding, time is fleeting, madness takes its toll."
Going to the ?Prince Charles? theatre to see it with my then-gf was brilliant back in 1991. You had loads of people in drag, many like us in 'normal' clothes, all singing along to the tunes.
I can't sing, and no-one minded. It was effing superb.
I've just looked it up, and it still seems they occasionally do it still. In the evenings occasionally, when I thought it was every Wednesday afternoon. But such memories...
I remember a whole bunch of us from VI form going to a special screening at the local multiplex, must have been in 1996. All sorts of mad outfits worn, alongside lots of bad singing and ad-libbing the jokes.
One of those little cultural moments of youth.
Also same year that Trainspotting was in the cinema, which I think I saw about five times, and with two different girlfriends!
Woke before it's time, in its promotion of trans ideology
I am just a sweet transvestite from trans-sexual transylvania...
Just seen a round-up of Michelle Donellan doing the morning press round really struggling on small boats and knighthood for Stanley. At one point she said "I'm not the immigration minister, I'm the SofS for Education. At least the interviewer was kind enough not to say "I know, unbelievable isn't it?"
At least she wasn't asked why her department continues to employ a chief of OFSTED who literally doesn't know what safeguarding is.
I encountered, in my early days in the city, a derivatives trader who was unaware that
- the pricing systems used the Bank of England base rate as a parameter - the Bank of England base rate had changed yesterday
He was therefore somewhat surprised that all the pricing numbers had changed. And rang me to complain.
For context - this is similar to a fisherman being unaware that water is wet.
Water is only 'wet' between 0 degrees C and 100 degrees C, at normal pressures.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
My aunt is in it!
Wow. May I ask in which role, if that isn't getting too personal?
She is one of the dancers. She was a dancer and actor, the only cool member of my family and much missed.
In the movie along with Biggins, Meatloaf and the others ?
(And did anyone else see Christopher Biggins in the previous clip?)
Tim Curry being amused by a huge fan getting his name wrong.
There is a *wonderfully* perverse Dennis Potter TV play starring Tim Curry - 'Schmoedipus'. There's a little excerpt on youtube of a musical part of it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKx665Y-CDo
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
The problem I have with all this is that a lot has happened already, without any revolt of the 'native populations'. The pattern of the post war era is that any revolt of the native population gets killed off politically. Won't that pattern just keep on repeating itself? These issues (opposition to asylum seekers, etc) keep on being associated with an old, dying demographic. You never see any young people taking on these issues. Or if they do, it is someone politically toxic like Tommy Robinson. Meanwhile, if you look at the UK, and in particular the cities where things happen, like London, Birmingham and Manchester... it keeps getting more and more multi-racial and diverse. I feel like the current conservative party policy, in this as with a lot of issues, is just the rage against the dying of the light.
Current conservative policy is aimed at the boats. Illegal migration as it is.
Legal Inward migration has never been higher, IIRC,and high levels of inward migration have been unofficial govt policy from the current date going back to new labour in spite of their protestations otherwise.
If you look at the history of New labour, from 1997 to about 2000, one of the features of it was a tolerance of illegal immigration. I first read about this in Tom Bowers book on Blair and I thought it was all made up, because it was so difficult to comprehend reading about it 2 decades on, and seeing all the problems that followed from it.
When you look at conservative party policy on it, who supports it? I would suggest that it is predominantly the older, native (ie White British) population. This stuff on Rwanda is a native revolt, but the demographics are working against them, it won't work.
It is true that Brexit was in some ways a native revolt, but for those who voted for it hoping to end immigration it was a miserable failure, it too is getting killed off politically.
According to Wikipedia: "Today, the [Chinese] population continues to grow." And -- if you look at the big table -- declined about 1 million in 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China (As far as I can tell, the second is closer to being correct.)
I am not a demographer, much less one specializing in such difficult nations as China, but I think that the current estimates of China's population are probably accurate to within 10 million, but may not be accurate to within 1 million.
Not sure OGH has got this right. 30% of Labour supporters favour this and 39% of Lib Dem voters. I'm not sure these laws would be the right ones but if he is seen to deal with the boats issue it'll be a big positive for him.
Not necessarily. I was one of the LDs in this survey mildly in favour (though don't expect it to be practicable), but no way am I voting for the corrupt mendacious shower of shite that we have in government.
But you are aiding, encouraging and enabling Bravermans rendition policy. Shame on you. It’s completely un-Christian Foxy! when you say you are helping asylum seekers, as you did in your first post to me, November 2021, are you in fact spying for the Cruella?
I’m with the Lib Dem voters saying strong no to this.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
My aunt is in it!
Wow. May I ask in which role, if that isn't getting too personal?
She is one of the dancers. She was a dancer and actor, the only cool member of my family and much missed.
In the movie along with Biggins, Meatloaf and the others ?
Just seen a round-up of Michelle Donellan doing the morning press round really struggling on small boats and knighthood for Stanley. At one point she said "I'm not the immigration minister, I'm the SofS for Education. At least the interviewer was kind enough not to say "I know, unbelievable isn't it?"
At least she wasn't asked why her department continues to employ a chief of OFSTED who literally doesn't know what safeguarding is.
I encountered, in my early days in the city, a derivatives trader who was unaware that
- the pricing systems used the Bank of England base rate as a parameter - the Bank of England base rate had changed yesterday
He was therefore somewhat surprised that all the pricing numbers had changed. And rang me to complain.
For context - this is similar to a fisherman being unaware that water is wet.
Although in the case of Spielman, it's more as if the Governor of the Bank of England had rung you to query 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.
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.
No its going to be bad, what you think really doesn't matter because its already happening and even in western countries increased temperatures are becoming a problem let alone hotter countries
I don't think they're becoming a problem. The problem I see is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
I certainly am not advocating the measures suggest by the loonier greens out there, I don't think a cure will even be attempted merely tinkering around the edges such as we are now because when push comes to shove governments will make sure voters don't see any drop in living standards and hope other countries will do enough to stop it. It is not going to be stopped but will be ameliorated enough to make some countries still habitable by such things as renewable energy etc. I fully expect those countries however to look after their own and hang the rest out to dry
Tinkering around the edges is fine. Any actual cure would probably be so wrong-headed as to be disastrous. We can only see through the lense of our times. It is always a very distorted lense.
Well to you at least but then you have always looked at things through your conspiracy theory goggles.....who can forget your theories on MH71 and ivermectin
Not sure about forgetting them, but inventing them certainly. I've never typed the word 'ivermectin' on this forum.
Ah yes sorry you were the zinc guy, your swallowing every propaganda line from russia on MH71 was still correct though
Apology accepted.
It's not a conspiracy theory - it would be totally unprecedented historically if we did not see things through a distorted lense, as they did when they wore lead make-up, or when they thought the earth was flat, or when they thought that we would all be driving nuclear powered cars. It is difficult to discern where we have really progressed and built on the knowledge of previous generations, and what are just the vulgar excesses of our age. I believe that most climate alarmism belongs in the latter category.
What has that got to do with your nasty stupidity over MH17?
Have you read the Dutch report(s) yet?
I think readers of both our posts can be the judges which of us has the nastier and more stupid output.
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
My aunt is in it!
Wow. May I ask in which role, if that isn't getting too personal?
She is one of the dancers. She was a dancer and actor, the only cool member of my family and much missed.
In the movie along with Biggins, Meatloaf and the others ?
Yeah.
Respect
Thanks! I can't claim any credit for it of course - the film was in the cinema the month I was born. It is lovely when we see her in something. She was a very cool woman.
According to Wikipedia: "Today, the [Chinese] population continues to grow." And -- if you look at the big table -- declined about 1 million in 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China (As far as I can tell, the second is closer to being correct.)
I am not a demographer, much less one specializing in such difficult nations as China, but I think that the current estimates of China's population are probably accurate to within 10 million, but may not be accurate to within 1 million.
According to Wikipedia: "Today, the [Chinese] population continues to grow." And -- if you look at the big table -- declined about 1 million in 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China (As far as I can tell, the second is closer to being correct.)
I am not a demographer, much less one specializing in such difficult nations as China, but I think that the current estimates of China's population are probably accurate to within 10 million, but may not be accurate to within 1 million.
Comments
Or am I wrong about that?
Illegals sometimes arrrive in the US in shipping containers. (I think the cost per person is typically about 30K.)
The average man in the street has a load of sympathy for those fleeing war and persecution, in countries such as Ukraine and Hong Kong - but not for someone from safe Albania who pays a smuggler to get him half way across Europe to safe France, then hoping to land on a beach somewhere and disappear into the UK black economy?
That we can see it’s fair that immigrants should contribute to the economy by means of a good job or potential, and that we shouldn’t be importing people who are a drain on the country unless they’re genuinely fleeing war and persecution?
That the current framework makes it difficult to distinguish between asylum seekers and economic migrants, hampered by the fact that it’s almost impossible to actually deport anyone?
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23366605.joanna-cherry-reported-snp-hq-wings-scotland-retweet/
Beau of the Fifth Column, over on YouTube, made a comment that might have US presidential election implications: that Trump has not been on Fox News since September.
How would this relative lack of visibility affect his chances of the nomination?
A few months ago, I was amazed to discover that Mrs J had never watched it (I used to go to see it in Leicester Square in the 1990s on ?Wednesdays?, amongst all the other freaks). So we watched it, and she loved it.
An absolute classic.
https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1632823653233758213
Essentially upgraded tech leads to more misidentification of things. Not a surprise. Early radar had the same issues.
Keep waiting for the big UAP reveal boys, it’s coming…*
*Just after commercial nuclear fusion. Maybe.**
**I think commercial fusion 100x more likely.
I could care less who he votes for. Dismissing millions of people as “hang wringers” based on where they live is just idiotic.
It begat this, which you surely must have heard of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdbLirsZ_4Q
Edit - China of course is off a cliff, a mere 1.28.
I feel like the current conservative party policy, in this as with a lot of issues, is just the rage against the dying of the light.
Forgive me for saying but how much of the falling reproductive rate is just down to places like india and bangladesh not collecting proper data. I would suspect that in both countries a lot of births never get registered
It’s just a jump to the left…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kkbZU-JtY
Chris Curry being amazing.
(And did anyone else see Christopher Biggins in the previous clip?)
China's population was still going up as recently as last year. Indeed, it may still be doing so.
Edit - you are correct that many births in India are not registered. However, I believe the figure I quoted adjusted for that.
Legal Inward migration has never been higher, IIRC,and high levels of inward migration have been unofficial govt policy from the current date going back to new labour in spite of their protestations otherwise.
Going to the ?Prince Charles? theatre to see it with my then-gf was brilliant back in 1991. You had loads of people in drag, many like us in 'normal' clothes, all singing along to the tunes.
I can't sing, and no-one minded. It was effing superb.
I've just looked it up, and it still seems they occasionally do it still. In the evenings occasionally, when I thought it was every Wednesday afternoon. But such memories...
https://princecharlescinema.com/PrinceCharlesCinema.dll/WhatsOn?f=2690
hand wringers? Even that doesn’t make sense because hand wringer is fake sorrow with no real attempt to actually help. Your post was actually rubbish Sandy, if you mean soft southern bleeding heart metro-numpties, then just be bluff and come out and say that.
Just to finish off on Estonia, a significant victory for the liberal Reform Party, winning 37 seats in the Riigikogu. A real setback for the conservative EKRE who lost seats and vote share and a disaster for Centre, another liberal party but one whose more pro-Russian sentiments went down like a lump of cold sick in the current climate.
In its place came another liberal party, E200, which picked up 14 seats in the new Riigikogu.
Reform and E200 can in fact govern with a small majority but it seems likely they will be joined by the Social Democrats.
Over here and a week after Sunak's triumph in Northern Ireland, we have a Redfield & Wilton poll showing the 27-point Labour lead having slumped, tanked or crashed to just 26 points. It seems whatever poll move there may have been early last week to the Conservatives, it's not been sustained.
To be fair, Government approval numbers and favourability numbers for Sunak have improved and in the Starmer vs Sunak preferred Prime Minister polling, last week's 41-32 is this week's 41-35 so a small but clear improvement.
Better news also in that 5% of the 209 Conservative GE vote would once again vote Conservative - 19% will switch to Labour and let's not forget if 45% nationally voted Conservative last time, a fifth of that is 9% of the overall electorate. 15% are Don't Knows and 10% will bck Reform.
Looking at the England sub-sample, Labour leads 52-26, a swing of 20.5% from the 2019 election. That suggests Sevenoaks, the 295th most marginal Conservative seat, would be lost leaving a rump Conservative parliamentary party of round 80-00 seats.
I'd actually argue, however, this is a better poll for the Government than last week's albeit the headline VI has hardly moved at all - the underlying and supplementary data is better though that's damning with faint phrase to some extent.
One of those little cultural moments of youth.
Also same year that Trainspotting was in the cinema, which I think I saw about five times, and with two different girlfriends!
In fact, I've noticed there's one on the 24th, the day after my birthday. Can I relive my youth, thirty years on? And drag Mars J along as well? Although nowadays it does not involve a quick trip along the tube from East London, but arranging babysitting, trains, hotels, etc, etc. The perils of responsibility...)
(Actually, Mrs J probably won't need dragging... But will I be in drag, for the first time ever...?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Curry
It would appear then, that the huge effort put into the 2022 Act has now been deemed a waste of time in respect of the asylum system and the boat crossings, if it is to be believed that more legislation is coming tomorrow. This doesn't give me any confidence - what a waste of time. For anybody interested in what was put on the statute book just nine months ago, the contents of Part 2 of the Act can be seen here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/36/contents
Legislating again so quickly? We're being taken for a ride, aren't we?
*self-contradiction paradox*
(I won't say what her nickname for me is. Except it isn't, but should be: "Get in the shower before bed you smelly oik!")
There's a real risk of increasing numbers of poorer Britons being priced out of meat protein by growing demand on the global market from China. And it's the sort of problem that will only deteriorate as the economy continues to stagnate.
It's not a conspiracy theory - it would be totally unprecedented historically if we did not see things through a distorted lense, as they did when they wore lead make-up, or when they thought the earth was flat, or when they thought that we would all be driving nuclear powered cars. It is difficult to discern where we have really progressed and built on the knowledge of previous generations, and what are just the vulgar excesses of our age. I believe that most climate alarmism belongs in the latter category.
In Iceland, the Independence Party which has dominated Icelandic politics since the dissolution of the union with Denmark in 1944, is now second in the polls behind the Social Democrats.
Conversely, in Denmark, the Social Democrats are on just 18.6% in the latest Voxmeter poll, their lowest showing in more than a decade and if repeated in a General Election would be the worst result since 1915. They led with the Socialist Folkeparti in second and Venstre in a tie for third with the Liberal Alliance.
Have you read the Dutch report(s) yet?
- the pricing systems used the Bank of England base rate as a parameter
- the Bank of England base rate had changed yesterday
He was therefore somewhat surprised that all the pricing numbers had changed. And rang me to complain.
For context - this is similar to a fisherman being unaware that water is wet.
Here's one for you: the UK nearly invented the Integrated Circuit, based on ideas developed in 1952. The reasons the project was dropped seems all too familiar, 80 years later.
https://ethw.org/Geoffrey_W._A._Dummer
I am just a sweet transvestite from trans-sexual transylvania...
(Using the language of its time).
Discuss.
When you look at conservative party policy on it, who supports it? I would suggest that it is predominantly the older, native (ie White British) population. This stuff on Rwanda is a native revolt, but the demographics are working against them, it won't work.
It is true that Brexit was in some ways a native revolt, but for those who voted for it hoping to end immigration it was a miserable failure, it too is getting killed off politically.
I am not a demographer, much less one specializing in such difficult nations as China, but I think that the current estimates of China's population are probably accurate to within 10 million, but may not be accurate to within 1 million.
Nicholas Eberstadt is a demographer and he believes that " China’s collapsing birth and marriage rates reflect a people’s deep pessimism"
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/28/behind-china-collapse-birth-marriage-rates/
https://twitter.com/sternenko/status/1632724928448417792/mediaviewer
when you say you are helping asylum seekers, as you did in your first post to me, November 2021, are you in fact spying for the Cruella?
I’m with the Lib Dem voters saying strong no to this.