Howdy, Stranger!

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

SNP leadership – latest betting – politicalbetting.com

1568101113

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,712
    IanB2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Looking unlikely right now, but imagine we have a hung parliament where the SNP hold the balance of power. Kate Forbes is leader of the SNP, whose economic and social views suggest she would very likely be a Tory voter had she been born south of the border.
    Labour refuses to accede to her demands for indyref2, but Rishi actually approaches Forbes and says he'd agree to if the SNP propped him up.
    Is it possible at all she would say yes and prop the Tories up?

    SNP would never take action that led to a Tory government.

    Oh, wait... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_Callaghan_ministry#Vote
    Disappointing to see PBers still can't understand thje nature of causality, never mind the actual history of the time.

    Even were Benpointer's interprtetation correct, you have to remember that Labour had massively reneged on thje referendum promise by counting the dead as No and imposing a minimum for Yes.
    I was teasing. I don't actually blame the SNP for letting Thatcher in: There was going to have to be an election within 6 months anyway; it was not certain that the Tories would win; the Liberals (remember them?) also voted No Confidence.
    But the SNP knew that a Tory win was in their strategic interest and lured first the LibDems, and then Labour, into calling for election at precisely the worst time.
    You're talking about 2019?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,995


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,667
    edited March 2023
    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    I can’t believe they cut down all the trees at Euston

    They were the only things that made the bleakness tolerable. They did it to “move a taxi rank” for HS2

    Now look at it

    Compared to the magnificence of St. Pancras, or Liverpool Street, you have to ask yourself, who turned Euston into something less appealing than a gents’ toilet in rural Turkey?
    The station it replaced was kind of horrible too (from photographs and accounts I've read, never saw it IRL obvs). Certainly no St Pancras, or even Kings Cross. Even the much lamented arch was just your basic Victorian grandiosity. I don't mind Euston once you're inside. Piazzas don't really work here though, we lack the weather or light for it. Better to have big light internal spaces or a park.
    “Basic Victorian Grandiosity” is about seven trillion times better than the shite we have now
    Most of the residents of Britain's cities would happily swap their houses/flats for the most basic of Victorian grandiosity.
    Victorian architecture is flattered by survivorship bias. They built hideous slums - back to backs with no ventilation or drainage, thin walls and tiny rooms - as well as nice terraced houses like the one I live in. The slums have mostly been torn down.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,898

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    I can’t believe they cut down all the trees at Euston

    They were the only things that made the bleakness tolerable. They did it to “move a taxi rank” for HS2

    Now look at it

    Compared to the magnificence of St. Pancras, or Liverpool Street, you have to ask yourself, who turned Euston into something less appealing than a gents’ toilet in rural Turkey?
    The station it replaced was kind of horrible too (from photographs and accounts I've read, never saw it IRL obvs). Certainly no St Pancras, or even Kings Cross. Even the much lamented arch was just your basic Victorian grandiosity. I don't mind Euston once you're inside. Piazzas don't really work here though, we lack the weather or light for it. Better to have big light internal spaces or a park.
    “Basic Victorian Grandiosity” is about seven trillion times better than the shite we have now
    Maybe. Having heard a lot about the Euston arch and being naturally inclined towards Victoria railway stations I was surprised when I first saw a picture of it, at how ugly it was. And people complained about how dark and dingy the original Euston was. I quite like the main concourse at Euston, but being an East Coast guy it's not a station I've used often, mostly for the sleeper.
    Nearly all of that “ugliness” was pollution, however. By the 1950s the Euston Arch had endured 110 years of London smog and soot and it had never been cleaned. Like the Parthenon but dipped in ash

    Here it is in its original Doric glory. Beautiful


    The outer columns are squared, the inner ones Doric. Poor.
    The rhythm of the columns and gaps is not regular. Poor.
    The entablature, frize and architrave is far too heavy for the width of the facade. Very poor.

    It's a mishmash of bits and pieces by someone with more enthusiasm than experience.
    All of which is like complaining about the standard of a disappointing ham and cheese sarnie when the alternative snack is a turd.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,552
    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    And the public will be for it until they are against it, faced with some actual human beings facing deportation or some embarrassing case of a prominent foreign visitor barred from entering the country. Do they want to deport Mo Farrah?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy
    I don't think that is a counter the point stodge was making.

    Remember the death penalty actually being pretty popular, but most politicians are still happy to think it is wrong?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,441

    Carnyx said:

    Looking unlikely right now, but imagine we have a hung parliament where the SNP hold the balance of power. Kate Forbes is leader of the SNP, whose economic and social views suggest she would very likely be a Tory voter had she been born south of the border.
    Labour refuses to accede to her demands for indyref2, but Rishi actually approaches Forbes and says he'd agree to if the SNP propped him up.
    Is it possible at all she would say yes and prop the Tories up?

    SNP would never take action that led to a Tory government.

    Oh, wait... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_Callaghan_ministry#Vote
    Disappointing to see PBers still can't understand thje nature of causality, never mind the actual history of the time.

    Even were Benpointer's interprtetation correct, you have to remember that Labour had massively reneged on thje referendum promise by counting the dead as No and imposing a minimum for Yes.
    I was teasing. I don't actually blame the SNP for letting Thatcher in: There was going to have to be an election within 6 months anyway; it was not certain that the Tories would win; the Liberals (remember them?) also voted No Confidence.
    Full marks, actually. A refreshing change on PB.
  • nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    Sandpit said:

    This is brilliant: a 45 minute discussion on current affairs between Jon Stewart and Ian Hislop.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=pbOiXmMnyw4

    Well worth watching, even if you don’t agree with their perspectives.

    Maybe Jon Stewart can explain to Ian Hislop how to produce satire that is actually funny.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    I can’t believe they cut down all the trees at Euston

    They were the only things that made the bleakness tolerable. They did it to “move a taxi rank” for HS2

    Now look at it

    Compared to the magnificence of St. Pancras, or Liverpool Street, you have to ask yourself, who turned Euston into something less appealing than a gents’ toilet in rural Turkey?
    The station it replaced was kind of horrible too (from photographs and accounts I've read, never saw it IRL obvs). Certainly no St Pancras, or even Kings Cross. Even the much lamented arch was just your basic Victorian grandiosity. I don't mind Euston once you're inside. Piazzas don't really work here though, we lack the weather or light for it. Better to have big light internal spaces or a park.
    “Basic Victorian Grandiosity” is about seven trillion times better than the shite we have now
    Most of the residents of Britain's cities would happily swap their houses/flats for the most basic of Victorian grandiosity.
    Victorian architecture is flattered by survivorship bias. They built hideous slums - back to backs with no ventilation or drainage, thin walls and tiny rooms - as well as nice terraced houses like the one I live in. The slums have mostly been torn down.
    Sure, but that still means we can take the good of it as an inspiration.
  • jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 790

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    I can’t believe they cut down all the trees at Euston

    They were the only things that made the bleakness tolerable. They did it to “move a taxi rank” for HS2

    Now look at it

    Compared to the magnificence of St. Pancras, or Liverpool Street, you have to ask yourself, who turned Euston into something less appealing than a gents’ toilet in rural Turkey?
    The station it replaced was kind of horrible too (from photographs and accounts I've read, never saw it IRL obvs). Certainly no St Pancras, or even Kings Cross. Even the much lamented arch was just your basic Victorian grandiosity. I don't mind Euston once you're inside. Piazzas don't really work here though, we lack the weather or light for it. Better to have big light internal spaces or a park.
    “Basic Victorian Grandiosity” is about seven trillion times better than the shite we have now
    Maybe. Having heard a lot about the Euston arch and being naturally inclined towards Victoria railway stations I was surprised when I first saw a picture of it, at how ugly it was. And people complained about how dark and dingy the original Euston was. I quite like the main concourse at Euston, but being an East Coast guy it's not a station I've used often, mostly for the sleeper.
    Nearly all of that “ugliness” was pollution, however. By the 1950s the Euston Arch had endured 110 years of London smog and soot and it had never been cleaned. Like the Parthenon but dipped in ash

    Here it is in its original Doric glory. Beautiful


    The outer columns are squared, the inner ones Doric. Poor.
    The rhythm of the columns and gaps is not regular. Poor.
    The entablature, frize and architrave is far too heavy for the width of the facade. Very poor.

    It's a mishmash of bits and pieces by someone with more enthusiasm than experience.
    All of which is like complaining about the standard of a disappointing ham and cheese sarnie when the alternative snack is a turd.
    That's pretty good!
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208
    WillG said:

    pigeon said:

    Driver said:

    ..

    ...

    Is Scottish politics undergoing a major shift?

    ➡️Labour seen more favourably (+10) than SNP (-1)
    ➡️SCon vote holding up in polls
    ➡️SNP vote dropping to 39% (-6)(GE)
    ➡️ScotGov performance net negative on all voter priorities
    ➡️Starmer has positive approval among 2019 SNP voters


    https://twitter.com/deanmthomson/status/1633834095917797379

    That is HYUFD level straw clutching. At the next GE the SNP are going to smash Starmer Labour out of the park.
    All this hatred towards SKS because he's not dumb enough to say he'll immediately overturn Brexit once in No10 and give the Tories a lifeline.
    Are you saying those people saying SKS is being economical with the actualité over his real EU intentions are correct?
    I don't think you can overturn Brexit in a single term. It needs to be demonstrably shown it's shit no matter who is running the show.
    Rejoin needs a whole lot more than people thinking the current situation is shit.
    Indeed. It needs at least 10-15 years for relations between the EU and the UK to calm down and stabilise (far from a certain prospect in itself, given the potential for a further spat over Northern Ireland, the boat people problem, or any number of other things.) Then it needs a stable majority of something like 2:1 in public opinion for re-entry, in the knowledge that the UK would be almost certain to end up as a bigger net contributor to the EU budget than before, would have to accept FoM again and would also be expected to join the Euro. It also requires unequivocal backing from all the main political parties - which means that the tiny rump of elderly Tory members have an effective veto over the entire process.

    I'm not saying that the UK will never go back, but it would be a major surprise if it happened this side of 2050.
    At which point the EU will be a mighty 9% of world GDP.
    The EU also won't want a big poor country joining and getting all the structural funds.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    I can’t believe they cut down all the trees at Euston

    They were the only things that made the bleakness tolerable. They did it to “move a taxi rank” for HS2

    Now look at it

    Compared to the magnificence of St. Pancras, or Liverpool Street, you have to ask yourself, who turned Euston into something less appealing than a gents’ toilet in rural Turkey?
    The station it replaced was kind of horrible too (from photographs and accounts I've read, never saw it IRL obvs). Certainly no St Pancras, or even Kings Cross. Even the much lamented arch was just your basic Victorian grandiosity. I don't mind Euston once you're inside. Piazzas don't really work here though, we lack the weather or light for it. Better to have big light internal spaces or a park.
    “Basic Victorian Grandiosity” is about seven trillion times better than the shite we have now
    Most of the residents of Britain's cities would happily swap their houses/flats for the most basic of Victorian grandiosity.
    Victorian architecture is flattered by survivorship bias. They built hideous slums - back to backs with no ventilation or drainage, thin walls and tiny rooms - as well as nice terraced houses like the one I live in. The slums have mostly been torn down.
    Yet many of the monstrosities of 1960s architecture are still with us, 60 years later. Brutalism is what prevents an attractive aerial view of London in any direction. All those Grenfell like flat blocks.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,841
    WillG said:

    pigeon said:

    Driver said:

    ..

    ...

    Is Scottish politics undergoing a major shift?

    ➡️Labour seen more favourably (+10) than SNP (-1)
    ➡️SCon vote holding up in polls
    ➡️SNP vote dropping to 39% (-6)(GE)
    ➡️ScotGov performance net negative on all voter priorities
    ➡️Starmer has positive approval among 2019 SNP voters


    https://twitter.com/deanmthomson/status/1633834095917797379

    That is HYUFD level straw clutching. At the next GE the SNP are going to smash Starmer Labour out of the park.
    All this hatred towards SKS because he's not dumb enough to say he'll immediately overturn Brexit once in No10 and give the Tories a lifeline.
    Are you saying those people saying SKS is being economical with the actualité over his real EU intentions are correct?
    I don't think you can overturn Brexit in a single term. It needs to be demonstrably shown it's shit no matter who is running the show.
    Rejoin needs a whole lot more than people thinking the current situation is shit.
    Indeed. It needs at least 10-15 years for relations between the EU and the UK to calm down and stabilise (far from a certain prospect in itself, given the potential for a further spat over Northern Ireland, the boat people problem, or any number of other things.) Then it needs a stable majority of something like 2:1 in public opinion for re-entry, in the knowledge that the UK would be almost certain to end up as a bigger net contributor to the EU budget than before, would have to accept FoM again and would also be expected to join the Euro. It also requires unequivocal backing from all the main political parties - which means that the tiny rump of elderly Tory members have an effective veto over the entire process.

    I'm not saying that the UK will never go back, but it would be a major surprise if it happened this side of 2050.
    At which point the EU will be a mighty 9% of world GDP.
    I'd be cautious about projecting the trends of the first two decades of the century too far into the future. Commentary can be so fixated on Britain's domestic problems and those of the wider West that we forget that everyone else has mighty challenges heading straight for them as well. China will have to deal with the same demographic crisis as the West when much of the country is still trying to develop, India is acutely vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and so on.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,441
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Looking unlikely right now, but imagine we have a hung parliament where the SNP hold the balance of power. Kate Forbes is leader of the SNP, whose economic and social views suggest she would very likely be a Tory voter had she been born south of the border.
    Labour refuses to accede to her demands for indyref2, but Rishi actually approaches Forbes and says he'd agree to if the SNP propped him up.
    Is it possible at all she would say yes and prop the Tories up?

    She might but Forbes is more rightwing than Sunak so she increases the chances of a Labour majority or at least enough seats to just need the LDs for a majority not the SNP. She would likely lose seats to Scottish Labour but gain most of the remaining SCon seats
    Is she a TORY even? Does she meet your criteria?
    No. Doesn't believe in the UK. I'd have thought it was a rather big hint.
    The Tories existed even before the Act of Union, that simply means she isn't a Conservative and Unionist
    Wel, of course. The tóraithe (as then spelt) were early modern (aka Tudor etc) thieves and robbers. Even before the 1603 act.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    And even a lord shat in a glorified bucket. Grim times.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    I despair of this country . From cool Brittania during Labours time in office to now becoming a pariah nation led by this rancid cesspit of a government.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,898
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yousaf now has 46 SNP MSPs and MPs backing him to just 12 for Forbes. Currently he seems to have a plurality of SNP members backing him but not a majority. So if Forbes did get a shock win thanks to Regan's preferences then the SNP would have the same problem the Tories had with Truss and IDS and Labour had with Corbyn.

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779?t=hx5if6iCvZaLQPCMeTSfRg&s=19

    A party leader backed by the party's members but not its representatives in Parliament

    Difference is that Ms Truss was not at all popular with the actual voters.
    That was never tested.
    What on earth do you think the result would have been aftwer the Kamikwazi Budget?!
    If she'd hobbled on with Hunt's agenda, a result similar to what Rishi is cruising for. If she'd managed to implement most of her economic agenda, who knows?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    pigeon said:

    WillG said:

    pigeon said:

    Driver said:

    ..

    ...

    Is Scottish politics undergoing a major shift?

    ➡️Labour seen more favourably (+10) than SNP (-1)
    ➡️SCon vote holding up in polls
    ➡️SNP vote dropping to 39% (-6)(GE)
    ➡️ScotGov performance net negative on all voter priorities
    ➡️Starmer has positive approval among 2019 SNP voters


    https://twitter.com/deanmthomson/status/1633834095917797379

    That is HYUFD level straw clutching. At the next GE the SNP are going to smash Starmer Labour out of the park.
    All this hatred towards SKS because he's not dumb enough to say he'll immediately overturn Brexit once in No10 and give the Tories a lifeline.
    Are you saying those people saying SKS is being economical with the actualité over his real EU intentions are correct?
    I don't think you can overturn Brexit in a single term. It needs to be demonstrably shown it's shit no matter who is running the show.
    Rejoin needs a whole lot more than people thinking the current situation is shit.
    Indeed. It needs at least 10-15 years for relations between the EU and the UK to calm down and stabilise (far from a certain prospect in itself, given the potential for a further spat over Northern Ireland, the boat people problem, or any number of other things.) Then it needs a stable majority of something like 2:1 in public opinion for re-entry, in the knowledge that the UK would be almost certain to end up as a bigger net contributor to the EU budget than before, would have to accept FoM again and would also be expected to join the Euro. It also requires unequivocal backing from all the main political parties - which means that the tiny rump of elderly Tory members have an effective veto over the entire process.

    I'm not saying that the UK will never go back, but it would be a major surprise if it happened this side of 2050.
    At which point the EU will be a mighty 9% of world GDP.
    I'd be cautious about projecting the trends of the first two decades of the century too far into the future. Commentary can be so fixated on Britain's domestic problems and those of the wider West that we forget that everyone else has mighty challenges heading straight for them as well. China will have to deal with the same demographic crisis as the West when much of the country is still trying to develop, India is acutely vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and so on.
    The EU economy in 2050 will likely be smaller than the forecast I described, because it doesn't take into account the demographic and fertility collapse in Europe from COVID.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yousaf now has 46 SNP MSPs and MPs backing him to just 12 for Forbes. Currently he seems to have a plurality of SNP members backing him but not a majority. So if Forbes did get a shock win thanks to Regan's preferences then the SNP would have the same problem the Tories had with Truss and IDS and Labour had with Corbyn.

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779?t=hx5if6iCvZaLQPCMeTSfRg&s=19

    A party leader backed by the party's members but not its representatives in Parliament

    Difference is that Ms Truss was not at all popular with the actual voters.
    That was never tested.
    What on earth do you think the result would have been aftwer the Kamikwazi Budget?!
    If she'd hobbled on with Hunt's agenda, a result similar to what Rishi is cruising for. If she'd managed to implement most of her economic agenda, who knows?
    For Gods sake let it go ! Truss was a catastrophe hated by the voters who had a creepy fascination with Thatcher.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,048
    edited March 2023
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Looking unlikely right now, but imagine we have a hung parliament where the SNP hold the balance of power. Kate Forbes is leader of the SNP, whose economic and social views suggest she would very likely be a Tory voter had she been born south of the border.
    Labour refuses to accede to her demands for indyref2, but Rishi actually approaches Forbes and says he'd agree to if the SNP propped him up.
    Is it possible at all she would say yes and prop the Tories up?

    She might but Forbes is more rightwing than Sunak so she increases the chances of a Labour majority or at least enough seats to just need the LDs for a majority not the SNP. She would likely lose seats to Scottish Labour but gain most of the remaining SCon seats
    Is she a TORY even? Does she meet your criteria?
    No. Doesn't believe in the UK. I'd have thought it was a rather big hint.
    The Tories existed even before the Act of Union, that simply means she isn't a Conservative and Unionist
    Wel, of course. The tóraithe (as then spelt) were early modern (aka Tudor etc) thieves and robbers. Even before the 1603 act.
    They also supported the monarchy etc. Forbes could certainly have been an 18th century Tory.

    More than that, Margaret Thatcher could well have had Forbes in her Cabinet, her views would have slotted in well
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,699
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    And even a lord shat in a glorified bucket. Grim times.
    Surely the lord in his castle deposited his stool down a hole leading to the castle moat, leaving a lovely streak down the walls?
    Favourite bit of any castle tour is the garderobe…
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,957
    It's funny how scathing journalists are about the SNP. People talk about a pro-union bias, but I always got the sense they were a bit scared of Sturgeon/Salmond (Andrew Neil aside, of course).

    No such reticence with these three. Smell blood.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,699
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    I despair of this country . From cool Brittania during Labours time in office to now becoming a pariah nation led by this rancid cesspit of a government.
    I think it depends on what is being stopped.
    (A) Small boat crossings due to the awful risks people on them are taking
    (B) Small boat crossings to stop the nasty forrin people getting here

    For many it’s A, for some it’s B, sadly.

    I want to do A, but also sort out means whereby genuine asylum claims can be made, close to the countries of origin.*

    *Does not include Albania.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,898
    edited March 2023
    nico679 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yousaf now has 46 SNP MSPs and MPs backing him to just 12 for Forbes. Currently he seems to have a plurality of SNP members backing him but not a majority. So if Forbes did get a shock win thanks to Regan's preferences then the SNP would have the same problem the Tories had with Truss and IDS and Labour had with Corbyn.

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779?t=hx5if6iCvZaLQPCMeTSfRg&s=19

    A party leader backed by the party's members but not its representatives in Parliament

    Difference is that Ms Truss was not at all popular with the actual voters.
    That was never tested.
    What on earth do you think the result would have been aftwer the Kamikwazi Budget?!
    If she'd hobbled on with Hunt's agenda, a result similar to what Rishi is cruising for. If she'd managed to implement most of her economic agenda, who knows?
    For Gods sake let it go ! Truss was a catastrophe hated by the voters who had a creepy fascination with Thatcher.
    I was asked a question. I don't know why you think she was hated by the voters with a creepy fascination with Thatcher - I'd say they'd be more inclined to support her.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    So what is your take on HS2?
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yousaf now has 46 SNP MSPs and MPs backing him to just 12 for Forbes. Currently he seems to have a plurality of SNP members backing him but not a majority. So if Forbes did get a shock win thanks to Regan's preferences then the SNP would have the same problem the Tories had with Truss and IDS and Labour had with Corbyn.

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779?t=hx5if6iCvZaLQPCMeTSfRg&s=19

    A party leader backed by the party's members but not its representatives in Parliament

    Difference is that Ms Truss was not at all popular with the actual voters.
    That was never tested.
    What on earth do you think the result would have been aftwer the Kamikwazi Budget?!
    If she'd hobbled on with Hunt's agenda, a result similar to what Rishi is cruising for. If she'd managed to implement most of her economic agenda, who knows?
    I 'm pretty sure that most of us are well aware of what would have happened.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,995

    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy
    I'm not trying to party politicise this even if you re.

    I think both Sunak and Starmer are being responsible - Sunak is trying to work with the French and others to come up with a suitable and proportionate response and Starmer reminds us it's the people smuggling gangs who are actively profiting from the desperation and misery of others. Targeting them and stopping them (and to be fair some of them appear to be British citizens so our hands aren't exactly clean) seems wholly sensible.

    Where I part company with Braverman is her policy continues to inflame sentiment against migrants - once a group is suitably dehumanised and vilified any action aginst them becomes justified. Whatever we may think of them as a group, migrants are individuals and we should treat them with a common decency and humanity.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,898

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yousaf now has 46 SNP MSPs and MPs backing him to just 12 for Forbes. Currently he seems to have a plurality of SNP members backing him but not a majority. So if Forbes did get a shock win thanks to Regan's preferences then the SNP would have the same problem the Tories had with Truss and IDS and Labour had with Corbyn.

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779?t=hx5if6iCvZaLQPCMeTSfRg&s=19

    A party leader backed by the party's members but not its representatives in Parliament

    Difference is that Ms Truss was not at all popular with the actual voters.
    That was never tested.
    What on earth do you think the result would have been aftwer the Kamikwazi Budget?!
    If she'd hobbled on with Hunt's agenda, a result similar to what Rishi is cruising for. If she'd managed to implement most of her economic agenda, who knows?
    I 'm pretty sure that most of us are well aware of what would have happened.
    Meh. I haven't studied polling post Suez, or Black Wednesday, etc., but I think if the PMs concerned survive, there is a modest recovery of sorts with the passage of time. The 'Rishi bounce' doesn’t seem much more extravagant than that to me.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,552
    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,172

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    But presumably most of them came via France? So the argument "thou shalt stop in the first safe country" holds as well then as now?
    And many of them did stop in France and Belgium and Holland, with disastrous consequences.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    I don't think fighting fire with fire in terms of mischaracterisation works, in this case. People really don't expect absolute perfection. If big projects were a bit over budget or bit delayed, they get annoyed but can understand that cannot reasonably be said to mean a project is a total failure.

    It's when things are vastly overbudget and massively delayed that the criticisms ramp up. Particularly if it comes across like no one could have believed the initial estimates.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,995

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    I rarely agree with you but I'm happy to in this instance.

    I've used Crossrail and it is hugely impressive. I must confess my journey from Farringdon to Whitechapel on Saturday evening was a bit of an obstacle course with the large number of presumably arrivals from Heathrow (though it could also be people heading to Stansted via Liverpool Street).

    I've not yet seen any formal data but anecdotally the coming of Crossrail has made Whitechapel station much busier and both Mile End and Canada Water quieter.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,552
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    I despair of this country . From cool Brittania during Labours time in office to now becoming a pariah nation led by this rancid cesspit of a government.
    No one took Cool Britannia seriously.

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    The Jews who arrived in 1938 generally arrived at our ports via The Netherlands, Belgium and France, democracies all. So you’re saying we should not have accepted them in 1938 because they could have stayed in those countries and be deported back when war came??!!! Some people on this board are beyond belief.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025
    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    Just because a policy is popular also does not make it wrong
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,195

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    But presumably most of them came via France? So the argument "thou shalt stop in the first safe country" holds as well then as now?
    Or like the Milibands, from Poland via Belgium.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,898
    Sean_F said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    I despair of this country . From cool Brittania during Labours time in office to now becoming a pariah nation led by this rancid cesspit of a government.
    No one took Cool Britannia seriously.

    It was very parrochial really. Nobody abroad would have known the original song in the first place.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,048
    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
  • stodge said:

    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy
    I'm not trying to party politicise this even if you re.

    I think both Sunak and Starmer are being responsible - Sunak is trying to work with the French and others to come up with a suitable and proportionate response and Starmer reminds us it's the people smuggling gangs who are actively profiting from the desperation and misery of others. Targeting them and stopping them (and to be fair some of them appear to be British citizens so our hands aren't exactly clean) seems wholly sensible.

    Where I part company with Braverman is her policy continues to inflame sentiment against migrants - once a group is suitably dehumanised and vilified any action aginst them becomes justified. Whatever we may think of them as a group, migrants are individuals and we should treat them with a common decency and humanity.
    I don't disagree with any of that but boats have to be stopped to save innocent lives
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,195
    On the subject of attempting illegal entry to British territory, and how we enforced it, confining the trafficked migrants in an off shore camp, then deporting them back to their country of departure:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Exodus



  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    Agree 100%. We are good at building mega projects in this country, not least thanks to the skills of people like you. And we are spectacularly bad at finding the political will to either start them or finish them.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,484
    edited March 2023
    I wouldn't read too much into polling that shows huge public support for 'stopping the boats'; I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case. 'Twas ever thus. Especially as the Tories and the Mail etc. have successfully defined the occupants of small boats as 'illegals'. Most British voters have never been overly sympathetic to asylum seekers or refugees, and much less so to 'illegals'. If anything, I'd have expected the polling to be even more in favour of 'stopping the boats'.

    Nevertheless, anti-migrant beliefs haven't stopped voters electing governments that don't share such attitudes in the past. People vote with more than one thing in mind, and I'm not persuaded that 'stopping the boats' will be anything like as important at GE 24 as 'Get Brexit Done' (oh, and by the way we don't want Corbyn) was at GE 2019.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,321
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    I despair of this country . From cool Brittania during Labours time in office to now becoming a pariah nation led by this rancid cesspit of a government.
    You took issue to me posting a quote from Blair talking about withdrawing from the ECHR because it was a long time ago, but this kind of the comment is the reason why it is important to look at the reality of that period rather than your bizarrely rose-tinted recollection of it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,552
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
    Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.


  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,724
    kle4 said:

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    I don't think fighting fire with fire in terms of mischaracterisation works, in this case. People really don't expect absolute perfection. If big projects were a bit over budget or bit delayed, they get annoyed but can understand that cannot reasonably be said to mean a project is a total failure.

    It's when things are vastly overbudget and massively delayed that the criticisms ramp up. Particularly if it comes across like no one could have believed the initial estimates.
    I disagree.

    Brits are whinging poms, and the Australians have got us dead right on that.

    Heathrow T5 had a problem with its baggage systems for 48-72 hours after opening, and that was it, but no-one has ever forgot it.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    Erm…no they weren’t. The war was still a year away and the Jews had been arriving since the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier. No one in France or the Netherlands thought in 1938 they were at risk of invasion. As was proved in May 1940 when they were both taken totally by surprise when it happened.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
    Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.


    Yes but at least they had cadfael
  • The pro free speech brigade want to cancel Lineker. You can see that they don’t care about free speech at all.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    So were we!
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    I despair of this country . From cool Brittania during Labours time in office to now becoming a pariah nation led by this rancid cesspit of a government.
    You took issue to me posting a quote from Blair talking about withdrawing from the ECHR because it was a long time ago, but this kind of the comment is the reason why it is important to look at the reality of that period rather than your bizarrely rose-tinted recollection of it.
    Blair was wrong. Next
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,552

    The pro free speech brigade want to cancel Lineker. You can see that they don’t care about free speech at all.

    I think Lineker is a tosser, but he’s entitled to speak his mind.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025
    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    Erm…no they weren’t. The war was still a year away and the Jews had been arriving since the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier. No one in France or the Netherlands thought in 1938 they were at risk of invasion. As was proved in May 1940 when they were both taken totally by surprise when it happened.
    Ah you mean like they were taken by surprise when Russia invaded ukraine.....well I will be charitable and put it down to wishful thinking on their part. Anyone in 38 not seeing that hitler dreamt of a europe under the nazi bootheel was frankly deluding themselves
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Britain Elects

    @BritainElects
    ·
    3h
    Share of Britons that rank immigration as an important issue in...

    2023 | February: 12%
    2016 | Eve of EU ref: 48%
    2015 | Refugee crisis: 56%
    2013-15 | Poll average: 36%

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1633865225865658372?cxt=HHwWiICw6YXx06wtAAAA
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,515

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    There's an old adage that my dad told me when I was knee-high to a grasshopper: when doing any construction, whether it's a new bathroom, a new house, building a road or a railway - then you have three criteria: specification, time and budget.

    It is easy to get one of them (although the WCML upgrade did not meet any of them).

    It is perfectly possible to get two: e.g. for the project to be on budget and spec, but late, or on spec and on time, but over budget.

    But it is really, really hard for a project to be on spec, on time and on budget. Crossrail, it should be remembered, only hit one: specification. It was over budget and late.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,236
    Pagan2 said:

    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    Just because a policy is popular also does not make it wrong
    Yes but it our pandemic experience that it usually is.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    So were we!
    Yes we were
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,552

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    I despair of this country . From cool Brittania during Labours time in office to now becoming a pariah nation led by this rancid cesspit of a government.
    You took issue to me posting a quote from Blair talking about withdrawing from the ECHR because it was a long time ago, but this kind of the comment is the reason why it is important to look at the reality of that period rather than your bizarrely rose-tinted recollection of it.
    I don’t think the public were any more keen on immigration from 1997-2010 than they are now.
  • DougSeal said:

    Britain Elects

    @BritainElects
    ·
    3h
    Share of Britons that rank immigration as an important issue in...

    2023 | February: 12%
    2016 | Eve of EU ref: 48%
    2015 | Refugee crisis: 56%
    2013-15 | Poll average: 36%

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1633865225865658372?cxt=HHwWiICw6YXx06wtAAAA

    Labour’s 30 point lead by July is increasing every day in likelihood. The Tories have got this badly wrong
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,699
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
    Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.


    I think poor weather in the decades before the Black Death was a leading cause of the famines, rather than the increased population per se.
    One thing I find fascinating. After the tremendous loss of life in the Black Deaths first wave, there were some huge changes to society, but it took a long time to manifest. And the battle of Poitiers was in 1356. I wonder if it’s a bit like covid for us, people prefer to forget and just get on with stuff (slaughtering the French).
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    So were we!
    Yes we were
    Stocky said:

    Pagan2 said:

    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    Just because a policy is popular also does not make it wrong
    Yes but it our pandemic experience that it usually is.
    Some things are popular and right some are popular but wrong
    Some things are unpopular but right some things are unpopular but wrong

    My point was you cant say this is popular so must be wrong
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,552

    DougSeal said:

    Britain Elects

    @BritainElects
    ·
    3h
    Share of Britons that rank immigration as an important issue in...

    2023 | February: 12%
    2016 | Eve of EU ref: 48%
    2015 | Refugee crisis: 56%
    2013-15 | Poll average: 36%

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1633865225865658372?cxt=HHwWiICw6YXx06wtAAAA

    Labour’s 30 point lead by July is increasing every day in likelihood. The Tories have got this badly wrong
    Somehow, I don’t think the public are demanding a more liberal approach.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,699
    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    Erm…no they weren’t. The war was still a year away and the Jews had been arriving since the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier. No one in France or the Netherlands thought in 1938 they were at risk of invasion. As was proved in May 1940 when they were both taken totally by surprise when it happened.
    That’s really not true. France was at war with Germany from Sept 1939. The had built the Maginot Line. The surprise was the direction of the attack, not the attack itself.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,724
    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    David Attenborough is a national treasure but has always been a luvvie Leftie.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,724
    Sean_F said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    I despair of this country . From cool Brittania during Labours time in office to now becoming a pariah nation led by this rancid cesspit of a government.
    You took issue to me posting a quote from Blair talking about withdrawing from the ECHR because it was a long time ago, but this kind of the comment is the reason why it is important to look at the reality of that period rather than your bizarrely rose-tinted recollection of it.
    I don’t think the public were any more keen on immigration from 1997-2010 than they are now.
    It's a golden opportunity for virtue signalling.

    In this day and age, why should we be surprised that some people are delighted to have a chance to do so turned up to 11?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    David Attenborough is a national treasure but has always been a luvvie Leftie.
    He is also a patron of the optimum population trust which believes in a hugely reduced human population
  • stodge said:

    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy
    I'm not trying to party politicise this even if you re.

    I think both Sunak and Starmer are being responsible - Sunak is trying to work with the French and others to come up with a suitable and proportionate response and Starmer reminds us it's the people smuggling gangs who are actively profiting from the desperation and misery of others. Targeting them and stopping them (and to be fair some of them appear to be British citizens so our hands aren't exactly clean) seems wholly sensible.

    Where I part company with Braverman is her policy continues to inflame sentiment against migrants - once a group is suitably dehumanised and vilified any action aginst them becomes justified. Whatever we may think of them as a group, migrants are individuals and we should treat them with a common decency and humanity.
    I don't disagree with any of that but boats have to be stopped to save innocent lives
    Your last two words should read 'Tory seats'.
    Sorry I just do not have a concern for conservative seats, I have concern for lives lost at sea and the risk my son and his colleagues, as sea going RNLI crew, take every day in rescuing people and children drowning at the hands of people smugglers
  • An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    Heathrow? The airport where we haven't built the northern runway and we haven't built the western runway and we haven't built another runway at Gatwick and we haven't built Boris island. Meanwhile European superhubs continue to expand successfully and we slide ever backwards in terms of our competitiveness.

    I am not attacking the quality of the projects that are built. I am attacking our constant inability to build projects. We haven't done a London hub airport expansion. We can't build high speed rail. We don't build motorways. Everyone else does. We are shit at infrastructure.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    Erm…no they weren’t. The war was still a year away and the Jews had been arriving since the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier. No one in France or the Netherlands thought in 1938 they were at risk of invasion. As was proved in May 1940 when they were both taken totally by surprise when it happened.
    That’s really not true. France was at war with Germany from Sept 1939. The had built the Maginot Line. The surprise was the direction of the attack, not the attack itself.
    The Dutch were pretty surprised. While we can disagree over France, there is no suggestion that in 1938 an invasion of France was “imminent”.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,552

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    David Attenborough is a national treasure but has always been a luvvie Leftie.
    Yet, the left used to welcome industrialisation, as it provided sufficient abundance to make socialism achievable.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    Heathrow? The airport where we haven't built the northern runway and we haven't built the western runway and we haven't built another runway at Gatwick and we haven't built Boris island. Meanwhile European superhubs continue to expand successfully and we slide ever backwards in terms of our competitiveness.

    I am not attacking the quality of the projects that are built. I am attacking our constant inability to build projects. We haven't done a London hub airport expansion. We can't build high speed rail. We don't build motorways. Everyone else does. We are shit at infrastructure.
    we pay too much attention to newts
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    Erm…no they weren’t. The war was still a year away and the Jews had been arriving since the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier. No one in France or the Netherlands thought in 1938 they were at risk of invasion. As was proved in May 1940 when they were both taken totally by surprise when it happened.
    That’s really not true. France was at war with Germany from Sept 1939. The had built the Maginot Line. The surprise was the direction of the attack, not the attack itself.
    The Dutch were pretty surprised. While we can disagree over France, there is no suggestion that in 1938 an invasion of France was “imminent”.
    Are you suggesting they built the maginot line just for a laugh?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,724

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    There's an old adage that my dad told me when I was knee-high to a grasshopper: when doing any construction, whether it's a new bathroom, a new house, building a road or a railway - then you have three criteria: specification, time and budget.

    It is easy to get one of them (although the WCML upgrade did not meet any of them).

    It is perfectly possible to get two: e.g. for the project to be on budget and spec, but late, or on spec and on time, but over budget.

    But it is really, really hard for a project to be on spec, on time and on budget. Crossrail, it should be remembered, only hit one: specification. It was over budget and late.
    The budget and schedule envelope set for Crossrail was never realistic - the Treasury took all float and contingency out of it and demanded it got everything (all testing and commissioning) right first time in an absurdly short timescale. And, don't forget, it will deliver all the benefits listed in its business case. WCML was much later, and more over budget, but that was brownfield not greenfield and again - delivered an excellent product; the WCML is far better and faster than it was in the 1990s.

    We need to move to windows, with margins of error, for big infrastructure projects. It's not like getting a quote for your conservatory.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,699
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    Erm…no they weren’t. The war was still a year away and the Jews had been arriving since the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier. No one in France or the Netherlands thought in 1938 they were at risk of invasion. As was proved in May 1940 when they were both taken totally by surprise when it happened.
    That’s really not true. France was at war with Germany from Sept 1939. The had built the Maginot Line. The surprise was the direction of the attack, not the attack itself.
    The Dutch were pretty surprised. While we can disagree over France, there is no suggestion that in 1938 an invasion of France was “imminent”.
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    Erm…no they weren’t. The war was still a year away and the Jews had been arriving since the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier. No one in France or the Netherlands thought in 1938 they were at risk of invasion. As was proved in May 1940 when they were both taken totally by surprise when it happened.
    That’s really not true. France was at war with Germany from Sept 1939. The had built the Maginot Line. The surprise was the direction of the attack, not the attack itself.
    The Dutch were pretty surprised. While we can disagree over France, there is no suggestion that in 1938 an invasion of France was “imminent”.
    Well yes, but I was commenting on 1940. I agree in 1938 it wasn5 imminent, although war was looming, that was pretty evident.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,484
    edited March 2023

    stodge said:

    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy
    I'm not trying to party politicise this even if you re.

    I think both Sunak and Starmer are being responsible - Sunak is trying to work with the French and others to come up with a suitable and proportionate response and Starmer reminds us it's the people smuggling gangs who are actively profiting from the desperation and misery of others. Targeting them and stopping them (and to be fair some of them appear to be British citizens so our hands aren't exactly clean) seems wholly sensible.

    Where I part company with Braverman is her policy continues to inflame sentiment against migrants - once a group is suitably dehumanised and vilified any action aginst them becomes justified. Whatever we may think of them as a group, migrants are individuals and we should treat them with a common decency and humanity.
    I don't disagree with any of that but boats have to be stopped to save innocent lives
    Your last two words should read 'Tory seats'.
    Sorry I just do not have a concern for conservative seats, I have concern for lives lost at sea and the risk my son and his colleagues, as sea going RNLI crew, take every day in rescuing people and children drowning at the hands of people smugglers
    Big G, my comment wasn't aimed at you personally - far from it. However, I would take some persuading that Braverman's main concern is to 'save innocent lives' - I reckon that's a long way down her list of priorities.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,170

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    David Attenborough is a national treasure but has always been a luvvie Leftie.
    He's a true patriot now, finally doing a series about our Beloved Blighty, starting this coming Sunday at 7pm.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,724
    Test
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208
    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    Erm…no they weren’t. The war was still a year away and the Jews had been arriving since the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier. No one in France or the Netherlands thought in 1938 they were at risk of invasion. As was proved in May 1940 when they were both taken totally by surprise when it happened.
    Ah you mean like they were taken by surprise when Russia invaded ukraine.....well I will be charitable and put it down to wishful thinking on their part. Anyone in 38 not seeing that hitler dreamt of a europe under the nazi bootheel was frankly deluding themselves
    Even Churchill was "dumbfounded" by the German victory over France in 1940.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,724
    Lineker seems to like to have his cake and eat it: using the BBC as a platform, and taking a massive salary from it, but damaging its reputation for neutrality accordingly, without obeying any of the rules.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,172

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    Erm…no they weren’t. The war was still a year away and the Jews had been arriving since the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier. No one in France or the Netherlands thought in 1938 they were at risk of invasion. As was proved in May 1940 when they were both taken totally by surprise when it happened.
    That’s really not true. France was at war with Germany from Sept 1939. The had built the Maginot Line. The surprise was the direction of the attack, not the attack itself.
    Construction on the Maginot Line began in 1929 and it was intended as a deterrent from its inception. The mindset was that it would prevent war rather than in the expectation of it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,724

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    Heathrow? The airport where we haven't built the northern runway and we haven't built the western runway and we haven't built another runway at Gatwick and we haven't built Boris island. Meanwhile European superhubs continue to expand successfully and we slide ever backwards in terms of our competitiveness.

    I am not attacking the quality of the projects that are built. I am attacking our constant inability to build projects. We haven't done a London hub airport expansion. We can't build high speed rail. We don't build motorways. Everyone else does. We are shit at infrastructure.
    I think you just spew verbal diarrhoea of the first emotions that enter your mind.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025
    kamski said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Roger said:

    Not sure if this has been done yet, but this week's YouGov poll was published by The Times Red Box this morning:
    Labour 45 (-2)
    Tory 23 (-2)
    LibDem 10 (-)
    Greens 7 (+1)
    Reform 7 (+2)
    SNP 4 (-)
    No polling dates were provided, but the previous week's (referenced in brackets) was 28th February and 1st March, so it's likely this one was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, no Tory small boat bounce as yet.

    Anyone expecting a 'Small Boat Bounce' takes an even dimmer view of the Great British public than I do. Braverman looks and sounds like a souped up Patel. The most unpopular member of an unpopulat government. Are people really attracted to those who seem to enjoy pulling the wings off flies?
    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov
    The question is very black or white . What would the result be if you added a caveat that banning would include genuine asylum seekers . Sadly much of the public only deal in slogans and swallow sound bites put out by no 10 politburo and its arse licking right wing press .
    The key is small boats and to stop them
    "The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

    In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

    The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

    Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

    The Daily Mail, 1938.
    Jews coming from Germany, a dangerous anti-Semitic dictatorship. Not people coming from France, a modern, liberal democracy. Do keep up.
    Hmm I wonder which country located between Germany and Britain those Jewish refugees might have passed through on their way here.
    Bollocks because in 1938 the netherlands and france etc were under imminent threat of invasion by the ones endangering german jews.....no one today is planning on invading france except maybe putin on those fantasy wet dream nights
    Erm…no they weren’t. The war was still a year away and the Jews had been arriving since the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier. No one in France or the Netherlands thought in 1938 they were at risk of invasion. As was proved in May 1940 when they were both taken totally by surprise when it happened.
    Ah you mean like they were taken by surprise when Russia invaded ukraine.....well I will be charitable and put it down to wishful thinking on their part. Anyone in 38 not seeing that hitler dreamt of a europe under the nazi bootheel was frankly deluding themselves
    Even Churchill was "dumbfounded" by the German victory over France in 1940.
    He probably expected them not to capitulate quite so quickly, 6 weeks....the ukraine have withstood russia for about 10 times that
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,724
    Pagan2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    David Attenborough is a national treasure but has always been a luvvie Leftie.
    He is also a patron of the optimum population trust which believes in a hugely reduced human population
    A warning that people can be hugely impressive and respected public figures, but also talk shite.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    kle4 said:

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    I don't think fighting fire with fire in terms of mischaracterisation works, in this case. People really don't expect absolute perfection. If big projects were a bit over budget or bit delayed, they get annoyed but can understand that cannot reasonably be said to mean a project is a total failure.

    It's when things are vastly overbudget and massively delayed that the criticisms ramp up. Particularly if it comes across like no one could have believed the initial estimates.
    I disagree.

    Brits are whinging poms, and the Australians have got us dead right on that.

    Heathrow T5 had a problem with its baggage systems for 48-72 hours after opening, and that was it, but no-one has ever forgot it.
    LHRT5 is great. The Liz Line is great. We can do great infrastructure. They had problems but now they’re world class

    But it is futile to deny that HS2 is a proper copper-bottomed chateau-bottled disaster, and one we haven’t even begun to solve - it might yet get worse

    It was an over engineered solution to an almost non existent problem, and the expense was always
    hideous. Fuck knows how we get out of this mess
  • stodge said:

    stodge said:


    Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

    Britain Elects

    On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

    Support: 50%
    Oppose: 36%

    via
    @YouGov

    Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
    There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy
    I'm not trying to party politicise this even if you re.

    I think both Sunak and Starmer are being responsible - Sunak is trying to work with the French and others to come up with a suitable and proportionate response and Starmer reminds us it's the people smuggling gangs who are actively profiting from the desperation and misery of others. Targeting them and stopping them (and to be fair some of them appear to be British citizens so our hands aren't exactly clean) seems wholly sensible.

    Where I part company with Braverman is her policy continues to inflame sentiment against migrants - once a group is suitably dehumanised and vilified any action aginst them becomes justified. Whatever we may think of them as a group, migrants are individuals and we should treat them with a common decency and humanity.
    I don't disagree with any of that but boats have to be stopped to save innocent lives
    Your last two words should read 'Tory seats'.
    Sorry I just do not have a concern for conservative seats, I have concern for lives lost at sea and the risk my son and his colleagues, as sea going RNLI crew, take every day in rescuing people and children drowning at the hands of people smugglers
    Big G, my comment wasn't aimed at you personally - far from it. However, I would take some persuading that Braverman's main concern is to 'save innocent lives' - I reckon that's a long way down her list of priorities.
    I genuinely care for the lives of people at sea and am very proud my son who is sea going crew on the verge of getting his first command in just 2 years

    I want the boats stopped for this reason and reject Farage style attitudes to Immigrants
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,724

    An awful lot of shit written about infrastructure on this thread by those who know nothing about it.

    Britain is world-leading at creating excellent infrastructure, and Heathrow T5, the Olympics and Crossrail are all first class.

    The measure seems to be absolute perfection of superb quality, on time, on budget and with no teething trouble whatsoever predicted with total accuracy over 10 years in advance otherwise it's shit.

    Megaprojects don't work like that.

    Agree 100%. We are good at building mega projects in this country, not least thanks to the skills of people like you. And we are spectacularly bad at finding the political will to either start them or finish them.
    Thanks.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,724
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
    Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.


    Halcyon days.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,025

    Pagan2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

    Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


    Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?

    https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

    We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

    People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
    I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
    I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

    A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
    David Attenborough is a national treasure but has always been a luvvie Leftie.
    He is also a patron of the optimum population trust which believes in a hugely reduced human population
    A warning that people can be hugely impressive and respected public figures, but also talk shite.
    As a naturalist he is impressive, when it comes to area's outside his sphere like many he assumes his expertise in on field makes him an expert on everything else
This discussion has been closed.