Quite a few polls this week have had Labour in rhe mid 40's and Con at about 30.
A smaller number have a bigger Lab lead.
It is time for my average of the weekly polls from 6 polling companies as all have published their polls for this week. Well done for being on time.
There has been a clear movement since February from Labour to the Conservatives.
That's interesting thanks for that.
Which 6 polling companies are included?
Seems like more than 6 reported this week but I guess not regularly enough. What would happen if they were added on weeks they report?
The six polling companies I am using are YouGov, Techne, Omnisis, PeoplePolling, Deltapoll and Redfield & Wilton. They have been polling on a weekly basis over the past 6 months giving rise to the averages since the week ending 23 September.
I am trying to provide consistent and comparable data which requires the same polling companies for each week, as there are significant differences between the polling companies at the moment and including a company, just because it polls in one week but not others, introduces a level of distortion.
Savanta are currently polling on a weekly basis, but have not been consistently over the past 6 months. Other polling companies are fortnightly - Opinion - or monthly - Ipsos, BMG.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I volunteer Canada as the country to try it out, say for 12 months. Then we will know. Massively underpopulated, liberal, democratic, space in mind blowing abundance, long tradition of humanitarian refuge.
Immigration was NET 1 million to Canada last year.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I volunteer Canada as the country to try it out, say for 12 months. Then we will know. Massively underpopulated, liberal, democratic, space in mind blowing abundance, long tradition of humanitarian refuge.
Immigration was NET 1 million to Canada last year.
No migrant destination, has ever found that - "Fuck, we've run out of economic migrants."
Cleaning toilets in London is better than being jobless in the slums of Peru. And there is much more chance of you getting something better.
Quite a few polls this week have had Labour in rhe mid 40's and Con at about 30.
A smaller number have a bigger Lab lead.
It is time for my average of the weekly polls from 6 polling companies as all have published their polls for this week. Well done for being on time.
There has been a clear movement since February from Labour to the Conservatives.
That's interesting thanks for that.
Which 6 polling companies are included?
Seems like more than 6 reported this week but I guess not regularly enough. What would happen if they were added on weeks they report?
The six polling companies I am using are YouGov, Techne, Omnisis, PeoplePolling, Deltapoll and Redfield & Wilton. They have been polling on a weekly basis over the past 6 months giving rise to the averages since the week ending 23 September.
I am trying to provide consistent and comparable data which requires the same polling companies for each week, as there are significant differences between the polling companies at the moment and including a company, just because it polls in one week but not others, introduces a level of distortion.
Savanta are currently polling on a weekly basis, but have not been consistently over the past 6 months. Other polling companies are fortnightly - Opinion - or monthly - Ipsos, BMG.
Thanks for that mate.
Do you post that every Friday on here?
I find it fascinating, will keep my eye out for it.
The ‘ordinary’ family at No 35: suspected Russian spies await trial in Slovenia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/24/suspected-russian-spies-trial-slovenia ...On Thursday, the foreign minister, Tanja Fajon, corroborated these claims, telling reporters the arrested couple were in fact Russian citizens, rather than Argentinians.
Unlike “legal” Russian intelligence officers, who are disguised as diplomats at Russian embassies across the world, the illegals operate without any visible links to Moscow. They are trained for years to impersonate foreigners and then sent abroad to gather intelligence. Many have children, who are raised in the cover identity without any idea that their parents are really Russian...
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
We are paying high taxes and getting poor services. I largely blame the party in power for the last 13 years and hope to see them voted out at the next general election.
I largely blame all parties of the last 30 years and all the middle classed sots wanting their own bunce from the system which is how we ended up with tax credits going to people with higher rate incomes and such like. The majority of the country existing on wages of mid 20k isn't that concerned about your social justice conscience for foreign aid and refugees, the arts, diversity training officers etc, they want services that work and enough left out of their paypacket to actually live.
Then along come people like most pb posters and just wave it away with "oh just raise tax" because you can afford it....maybe you will only eat out 3 nights a week instead of 4......they on the other hand will skip heating or eating because the tax is raised
As with all these things the real answer is to reduce property prices so less money is spent on a mortgage. If you are mortgage free outside London 25 grand per year is a perfectly liveable salary.
Main problem is that the British economy, and a very large percentage of the electorate, is addicted to the crack cocaine of ever rising house prices, sustained by a chronic lack of supply. And the politicians are too terrified of the massed hordes of nimbies to fix the problem, so we're stuck.
Of course, ludicrously overpriced properties do at least offer a theoretical alternative to the problem of the endless ramping of income tax, and other levies on earned incomes, to fund the astronomical cost of state pensions and caring for the demented: tax the crap out of assets instead. But that would result in enraged screaming from the majority of the grey vote who are owner occupiers - a large group, and one closely overlapping with the dreaded nimbies, of whom the politicians are also terrified.
And so we continue, as a nation, to circle the plughole.
If you are an elderly spinster living alone in a large house you already pay a hefty amount in council tax, you don't need a wealth tax on top too thanks
Nobody ever 'needs' any tax. We need the things that taxes pay for. That elderly spinster could well need good health services and potentially social care.
If she's living in a large house she should maybe consider downsizing?
Any property wealth tax could be paid as a charge raised against the property to be paid when the property is eventually sold.
Quite a few polls this week have had Labour in rhe mid 40's and Con at about 30.
A smaller number have a bigger Lab lead.
It is time for my average of the weekly polls from 6 polling companies as all have published their polls for this week. Well done for being on time.
There has been a clear movement since February from Labour to the Conservatives.
That's interesting thanks for that.
Which 6 polling companies are included?
Seems like more than 6 reported this week but I guess not regularly enough. What would happen if they were added on weeks they report?
The six polling companies I am using are YouGov, Techne, Omnisis, PeoplePolling, Deltapoll and Redfield & Wilton. They have been polling on a weekly basis over the past 6 months giving rise to the averages since the week ending 23 September.
I am trying to provide consistent and comparable data which requires the same polling companies for each week, as there are significant differences between the polling companies at the moment and including a company, just because it polls in one week but not others, introduces a level of distortion.
Savanta are currently polling on a weekly basis, but have not been consistently over the past 6 months. Other polling companies are fortnightly - Opinion - or monthly - Ipsos, BMG.
Thanks for that mate.
Do you post that every Friday on here?
I find it fascinating, will keep my eye out for it.
I will post when all six polling companies have published their polls. So not necessarily on Friday; YouGov have been rather tardy recently not publishing until the Wednesday after, but this week published quickly so I was able to undertake the calculations today.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Luke 18 comes to mind, for some reason. I wonder why?
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
We are paying high taxes and getting poor services. I largely blame the party in power for the last 13 years and hope to see them voted out at the next general election.
I largely blame all parties of the last 30 years and all the middle classed sots wanting their own bunce from the system which is how we ended up with tax credits going to people with higher rate incomes and such like. The majority of the country existing on wages of mid 20k isn't that concerned about your social justice conscience for foreign aid and refugees, the arts, diversity training officers etc, they want services that work and enough left out of their paypacket to actually live.
Then along come people like most pb posters and just wave it away with "oh just raise tax" because you can afford it....maybe you will only eat out 3 nights a week instead of 4......they on the other hand will skip heating or eating because the tax is raised
As with all these things the real answer is to reduce property prices so less money is spent on a mortgage. If you are mortgage free outside London 25 grand per year is a perfectly liveable salary.
Main problem is that the British economy, and a very large percentage of the electorate, is addicted to the crack cocaine of ever rising house prices, sustained by a chronic lack of supply. And the politicians are too terrified of the massed hordes of nimbies to fix the problem, so we're stuck.
Of course, ludicrously overpriced properties do at least offer a theoretical alternative to the problem of the endless ramping of income tax, and other levies on earned incomes, to fund the astronomical cost of state pensions and caring for the demented: tax the crap out of assets instead. But that would result in enraged screaming from the majority of the grey vote who are owner occupiers - a large group, and one closely overlapping with the dreaded nimbies, of whom the politicians are also terrified.
And so we continue, as a nation, to circle the plughole.
If you are an elderly spinster living alone in a large house you already pay a hefty amount in council tax, you don't need a wealth tax on top too thanks
Council tax is a bad joke and one decades overdue for the scrapheap. The multiple between the charge levied on the tiniest, meanest little bedsit and an actual palace in the same local authority area is just three.
The asset rich, cash poor problem has a variety of possible solutions, e.g. selling up and downsizing.
The care of the elderly is an absolutely immense burden upon the state, and it's simply not reasonable to expect working age taxpayers on collapsing real incomes to fund inflation-proofed (and typically inflation-busting) state pensions for the ever-increasing percentage of the population that's entitled to them, nor to pay to ensure that the well-off old can have their tax bills kept to a minimum, and then pass on their estates tax-free to their heirs when they pop off. The average pensioner household, after housing costs are taken into account, now has a higher disposable income than the average working household, and the triple lock means that pensioners are going to accelerate off into the distance on this measure.
Too much of the nation's wealth is held in property, and the price of housing makes life increasingly difficult and precarious for the poor and the young, who are nonetheless expected effectively to subsidise the luxury spending of middle class pensioners out of their wages. It's not sustainable. Something has to give.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And yet other countries do manage to fund all sorts of things properly via the government without their population revolting at the taxes they pay.
We're going wrong somewhere as a nation, and I find it increasingly hard to escape the feeling that a) the UK is especially prone to a kind of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking that is increasingly biting us on the bum as all the short term patches fail at once and b) the money we've saved by doing this has largely ended up in house price inflation and hasn't actually made most of us much happier.
The only revolting going on right now is across the channel!
Quite a few polls this week have had Labour in rhe mid 40's and Con at about 30.
A smaller number have a bigger Lab lead.
It is time for my average of the weekly polls from 6 polling companies as all have published their polls for this week. Well done for being on time.
There has been a clear movement since February from Labour to the Conservatives.
That's interesting thanks for that.
Which 6 polling companies are included?
Seems like more than 6 reported this week but I guess not regularly enough. What would happen if they were added on weeks they report?
The six polling companies I am using are YouGov, Techne, Omnisis, PeoplePolling, Deltapoll and Redfield & Wilton. They have been polling on a weekly basis over the past 6 months giving rise to the averages since the week ending 23 September.
I am trying to provide consistent and comparable data which requires the same polling companies for each week, as there are significant differences between the polling companies at the moment and including a company, just because it polls in one week but not others, introduces a level of distortion.
Savanta are currently polling on a weekly basis, but have not been consistently over the past 6 months. Other polling companies are fortnightly - Opinion - or monthly - Ipsos, BMG.
That really does show how much the polling picture is dominated by firms new to VI polling since the last election.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
That appears to be nearly 10 years out of date, and importantly pre-covid, where a lot of the habitual attendees just stopped going.
And weddings, baptisms and christenings? Really?
Everyone should, by law, still have to be married in the Church of England Church as in the good old days before 1837.
And they should all have to hire an organist, who gets £500 for turning up and £750 more for playing the fucking awful bullshit they usually choose as music.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
Covid showed that the govt budgets are a lot more flexible than people assumed. To be fair the Truss experiment equally showed that markets will be brutal if they do not believe or understand why budgets are being stretched.
I accept it would not be trivial to assure the markets that this is the right course for the economy but with detailed budgeting and good communication (both of which Truss completely shied away from) I don't think it is unrealistic either.
Since Labour want to spend on everything pretty much without limit I'm not sure the markets will agree. Of course they talk about raising taxes here and there as well and then spend the cash raised many times over...
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
There are literally billions of people who would move across the world for a better life.
Minimum wage in the UK is 5 times higher than the global median salary, putting you in the top 8%, so there’s over seven billion people poorer than you.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
That appears to be nearly 10 years out of date, and importantly pre-covid, where a lot of the habitual attendees just stopped going.
And weddings, baptisms and christenings? Really?
Everyone should, by law, still have to be married in the Church of England Church as in the good old days before 1837.
And they should all have to hire an organist, who gets £500 for turning up and £750 more for playing the fucking awful bullshit they usually choose as music.
Deliberately walking closely behind someone as they walk home at night Making obscene or aggressive comments towards a person in the street Making obscene or offensive gestures towards a person in the street Obstructing someone's path Driving or riding a vehicle slowly near someone making a journey
Some of those seem very difficult to very difficult to pin down very definite definitions for. What is an offensive gesture? Is it, what the person on the receiving end deems it to be?
Making the "you are a wanker" gesture to someone who has wronged you while out and about is the right of every free born Englishman.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
That appears to be nearly 10 years out of date, and importantly pre-covid, where a lot of the habitual attendees just stopped going.
And weddings, baptisms and christenings? Really?
Everyone should, by law, still have to be married in the Church of England Church as in the good old days before 1837.
And they should all have to hire an organist, who gets £500 for turning up and £750 more for playing the fucking awful bullshit they usually choose as music.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
Is that the same opinion that formed the only 13000 will likely come here from the blair years? Why yes it is
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
The 916,000 (about 1.5% of the population) includes people going once a month, as well as those who never go in person.
These numbers are still a hell of a long way from 47%. The suggestion that the CofE could target the 2/3 of the population that are monarchists, as if they're somehow building on their current 47% is a real stretch.
They currently get about 1% of the population attending a CofE Church a week, and a few more occasionally, so would be better starting with the other 45-46% of the population who tick the box, but do nothing more.
Still, with an average age of 60+, and that's even with all the parents/kids who are told to attend if they want to go to the local school, I wouldn't be betting on any increases any time soon.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
There are literally billions of people who would move across the world for a better life.
Minimum wage in the UK is 5 times higher than the global median salary, putting you in the top 8%, so there’s over seven billion people poorer than you.
I know how stupidly rich we in the UK are compared to most of humanity. But does this mean 'billions' would move here regardless of their ties to home and all the other non-financial factors? It's not an easy thing to quantify but I truly doubt it.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
That appears to be nearly 10 years out of date, and importantly pre-covid, where a lot of the habitual attendees just stopped going.
And weddings, baptisms and christenings? Really?
Everyone should, by law, still have to be married in the Church of England Church as in the good old days before 1837.
And they should all have to hire an organist, who gets £500 for turning up and £750 more for playing the fucking awful bullshit they usually choose as music.
Or better still we could go back to the law from Queen Elizabeth I to the Protectorate and then from the Restoration to the 19th century that everyone had to attend the service in their Church of England Parish Church weekly or be fined
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
There are literally billions of people who would move across the world for a better life.
Minimum wage in the UK is 5 times higher than the global median salary, putting you in the top 8%, so there’s over seven billion people poorer than you.
I know how stupidly rich we in the UK are compared to most of humanity. But does this mean 'billions' would move here regardless of their ties to home and all the other non-financial factors? It's not an easy thing to quantify but I truly doubt it.
reminds you once more about the last time people like you made an estimate and said 13000 when the the number turned out to be a million
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
That appears to be nearly 10 years out of date, and importantly pre-covid, where a lot of the habitual attendees just stopped going.
And weddings, baptisms and christenings? Really?
Everyone should, by law, still have to be married in the Church of England Church as in the good old days before 1837.
And they should all have to hire an organist, who gets £500 for turning up and £750 more for playing the fucking awful bullshit they usually choose as music.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
You trek half way across the country for a job in those places. Which means days of riding in a coach if you are rich. If you are poor….
One person in an ok job in the U.K. can send home life changing money for the whole family. That’s what my wife does.
That’s the point - yes, you leave your family behind. But that’s what people did in the old days in the West. Plus WhatsApp everywhere.
Go talk to the people who clean the toilets in your office or empty the dishwasher. They’ll explain it to you.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
Is that the same opinion that formed the only 13000 will likely come here from the blair years? Why yes it is
Well no it isn't. I had no input to Tony's forecasting model.
Quite a few polls this week have had Labour in rhe mid 40's and Con at about 30.
A smaller number have a bigger Lab lead.
It is time for my average of the weekly polls from 6 polling companies as all have published their polls for this week. Well done for being on time.
There has been a clear movement since February from Labour to the Conservatives.
That's interesting thanks for that.
Which 6 polling companies are included?
Seems like more than 6 reported this week but I guess not regularly enough. What would happen if they were added on weeks they report?
The six polling companies I am using are YouGov, Techne, Omnisis, PeoplePolling, Deltapoll and Redfield & Wilton. They have been polling on a weekly basis over the past 6 months giving rise to the averages since the week ending 23 September.
I am trying to provide consistent and comparable data which requires the same polling companies for each week, as there are significant differences between the polling companies at the moment and including a company, just because it polls in one week but not others, introduces a level of distortion.
Savanta are currently polling on a weekly basis, but have not been consistently over the past 6 months. Other polling companies are fortnightly - Opinion - or monthly - Ipsos, BMG.
Thanks for that mate.
Do you post that every Friday on here?
I find it fascinating, will keep my eye out for it.
I will post when all six polling companies have published their polls. So not necessarily on Friday; YouGov have been rather tardy recently not publishing until the Wednesday after, but this week published quickly so I was able to undertake the calculations today.
Notably the best Conservative figure and worst Labour figure since the Calamity of the Truss/Kwarteng mini-budget.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
Is that the same opinion that formed the only 13000 will likely come here from the blair years? Why yes it is
Well no it isn't. I had no input to Tony's forecasting model.
No but typical leftist thinking.....they ignore human nature just like you claiming if we ban private schools rich people will neither send their kids to private schools overseas or flood areas where there are good state schools but instead be satisfied with failed local comp....hint you are wrong
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
The 916,000 (about 1.5% of the population) includes people going once a month, as well as those who never go in person.
These numbers are still a hell of a long way from 47%. The suggestion that the CofE could target the 2/3 of the population that are monarchists, as if they're somehow building on their current 47% is a real stretch.
They currently get about 1% of the population attending a CofE Church a week, and a few more occasionally, so would be better starting with the other 45-46% of the population who tick the box, but do nothing more.
Still, with an average age of 60+, and that's even with all the parents/kids who are told to attend if they want to go to the local school, I wouldn't be betting on any increases any time soon.
2.3 million also attended a Church of England Christmas service in 2019.
The 47% includes Roman Catholics and Baptists or Pentecostals. Agnostic monarchists who might become Christians are more likely to be Church of England than those
Watching the news. Have to hand it to the French - they know how to protest.
Absolutely
Allez Les Bleus.
Well, kinda. But it's a weirdly adversarial view of the state. Macron isn't making them retire later because he's mean or because he's hoarding all the money for himself. It's not that the government has money whuch ut can choose whether to dole out to a grateful supplicant population. He's doing it because he thinks French people will in the long run be better off by the state taking this course of action. And I don't think it's a controversial view anywhere except France. Anyone protesting is favouring a shift of wealth from young to old. Which is a legitimate view, but an odd priority in the current climate.
Don't know about anybody else, but catching up on this thread I'm getting increasingly anxious about the huge number of immigrants apparently coming from Peru to settle here.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
Covid showed that the govt budgets are a lot more flexible than people assumed. To be fair the Truss experiment equally showed that markets will be brutal if they do not believe or understand why budgets are being stretched.
I accept it would not be trivial to assure the markets that this is the right course for the economy but with detailed budgeting and good communication (both of which Truss completely shied away from) I don't think it is unrealistic either.
Since Labour want to spend on everything pretty much without limit I'm not sure the markets will agree. Of course they talk about raising taxes here and there as well and then spend the cash raised many times over...
I expect Labour will prioritise spending that they think makes them most likely to get re-elected rather than fix our structural problems. Short termism and penny rich pound poor is not just a Tory issue, it is a reflection of our poor politics and leadership across the board.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
The 916,000 (about 1.5% of the population) includes people going once a month, as well as those who never go in person.
These numbers are still a hell of a long way from 47%. The suggestion that the CofE could target the 2/3 of the population that are monarchists, as if they're somehow building on their current 47% is a real stretch.
They currently get about 1% of the population attending a CofE Church a week, and a few more occasionally, so would be better starting with the other 45-46% of the population who tick the box, but do nothing more.
Still, with an average age of 60+, and that's even with all the parents/kids who are told to attend if they want to go to the local school, I wouldn't be betting on any increases any time soon.
2.3 million also attended a Church of England Christmas service in 2019.
The 47% includes Roman Catholics and Baptists or Pentecostals. Agnostic monarchists who might become Christians are more likely to be Church of England than those
Midnight Mass used to be a good end to a Piss Up when I was a Teen.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Luke 18 comes to mind, for some reason. I wonder why?
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Yes and most of the foodbanks in England are provided by or supported by the Church of England.
Jesus didn't have a problem with wealth as long as it was used to help others, see the parable of the Good Samaritan, Thatcher's favourite
Where in the Parable of the Good Samaritan does it say he was wealthy? The point of the parable is that he’s from a disliked religious group.
The Samaritan had the funds to put the injured traveller up at an Inn.
Jesus was also a fan of prudent investment, see the Parable of the Talents
You don’t have to be wealthy to put someone up at an inn for the night.
Most interpretations of the Parable of the Talents do not see it as pro-wealth.
You certainly can't have no money to do it either.
Leftwing interpretations may not but it is obvious pro savings and prudent investment and not sloth
No-one was saying that Luke 18 precludes having any money at all or that it opposes savings and prudent investment, so put that straw man away.
My take on a "rich man entering heaven like a camel passing through the eye of a needle" is that it is saying "it is OK to be poor, you will get your reward in heaven".
Watching the news. Have to hand it to the French - they know how to protest.
Absolutely
Allez Les Bleus.
Well, kinda. But it's a weirdly adversarial view of the state. Macron isn't making them retire later because he's mean or because he's hoarding all the money for himself. It's not that the government has money whuch ut can choose whether to dole out to a grateful supplicant population. He's doing it because he thinks French people will in the long run be better off by the state taking this course of action. And I don't think it's a controversial view anywhere except France. Anyone protesting is favouring a shift of wealth from young to old. Which is a legitimate view, but an odd priority in the current climate.
It’s an accepted view in a large chunk of France, which is why Macron is President.
The protestors regard the retirement age as a Right and expect the government to find the money to pay for it. Because Rights trump everything.
Don't know about anybody else, but catching up on this thread I'm getting increasingly anxious about the huge number of immigrants apparently coming from Peru to settle here.
Are they descendants of Paddington Bear?
descendants of paddington wouldn't be a problem at least we are allowed to eat them
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
You only have to look at the large population movements of past centuries, when moving was considerably more difficult than it is now, to see that, yes, huge numbers of people would migrate.
Before my parents-in-law went to the US for a holiday recently they shared a drink with us the night before and my father-in-law joked that they were having an "American wake". This was the tradition in Ireland to hold what was effectively a wake for people before they migrated to America, because the chances are that no-one in Ireland would ever see them again after they left, so there's be no chance to hold a wake for them later when they actually died.
Now, in a world where migrating doesn't have to mean never seeing your family ever again, I am sure that even more people would be willing to move, compared to the many millions who migrated across the Atlantic in prior centuries.
Don't know about anybody else, but catching up on this thread I'm getting increasingly anxious about the huge number of immigrants apparently coming from Peru to settle here.
Are they descendants of Paddington Bear?
Indeed couldnt get any decent marmalade at our local vegan, organic, metropolitan elite deli, had to suffer with some fig jam instead.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
You trek half way across the country for a job in those places. Which means days of riding in a coach if you are rich. If you are poor….
One person in an ok job in the U.K. can send home life changing money for the whole family. That’s what my wife does.
That’s the point - yes, you leave your family behind. But that’s what people did in the old days in the West. Plus WhatsApp everywhere.
Go talk to the people who clean the toilets in your office or empty the dishwasher. They’ll explain it to you.
Malmesbury please stop crowbarring in this weary 'wisdom'. I know there are lots of terribly impoverished people in the world and that many more of them would like to move to the UK than are able to. We agree on this undoubted fact.
Watching the news. Have to hand it to the French - they know how to protest.
Absolutely
Allez Les Bleus.
Well, kinda. But it's a weirdly adversarial view of the state. Macron isn't making them retire later because he's mean or because he's hoarding all the money for himself. It's not that the government has money whuch ut can choose whether to dole out to a grateful supplicant population. He's doing it because he thinks French people will in the long run be better off by the state taking this course of action. And I don't think it's a controversial view anywhere except France. Anyone protesting is favouring a shift of wealth from young to old. Which is a legitimate view, but an odd priority in the current climate.
He also has a mandate to do so, having won the 2022 Presidential election and with his party having a majority in the French Parliament with Conservatives who also back plans to raise the retirement age
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
There are literally billions of people who would move across the world for a better life.
Minimum wage in the UK is 5 times higher than the global median salary, putting you in the top 8%, so there’s over seven billion people poorer than you.
I know how stupidly rich we in the UK are compared to most of humanity. But does this mean 'billions' would move here regardless of their ties to home and all the other non-financial factors? It's not an easy thing to quantify but I truly doubt it.
As an example, 10% of the GDP of the Philippines is money remitted by Filipinos working abroad, 2m people, 2% of the population.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
You only have to look at the large population movements of past centuries, when moving was considerably more difficult than it is now, to see that, yes, huge numbers of people would migrate.
Before my parents-in-law went to the US for a holiday recently they shared a drink with us the night before and my father-in-law booked that they were having an "American wake". This was the tradition in Ireland to hold what was effectively a wake for people before they migrated to America, because the chances are that no-one in Ireland would ever see them again after they left, so there's be no chance to hold a wake for them later when they actually died.
Now, in a world where migrating doesn't have to mean never seeing your family ever again, I am sure that even more people would be willing to move, compared to the many millions who migrated across the Atlantic in prior centuries.
Plus one gets in then more can follow, probably a major driver in small boat travel. The young and fit most likely to survive they get status then can bring the family over
Don't know about anybody else, but catching up on this thread I'm getting increasingly anxious about the huge number of immigrants apparently coming from Peru to settle here.
Are they descendants of Paddington Bear?
descendants of paddington wouldn't be a problem at least we are allowed to eat them
The Peruvians are a hard lot. Not sure that trying to eat one would go well for you.
On my visits to Peru I’ve given out quite a number of Paddingtons to various children. After the movies came out, suddenly they’ve been remembered….
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
Covid showed that the govt budgets are a lot more flexible than people assumed. To be fair the Truss experiment equally showed that markets will be brutal if they do not believe or understand why budgets are being stretched.
I accept it would not be trivial to assure the markets that this is the right course for the economy but with detailed budgeting and good communication (both of which Truss completely shied away from) I don't think it is unrealistic either.
Since Labour want to spend on everything pretty much without limit I'm not sure the markets will agree. Of course they talk about raising taxes here and there as well and then spend the cash raised many times over...
I expect Labour will prioritise spending that they think makes them most likely to get re-elected rather than fix our structural problems. Short termism and penny rich pound poor is not just a Tory issue, it is a reflection of our poor politics and leadership across the board.
Yes
Its a pity the Noneoftheabove user name is already taken
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
There are literally billions of people who would move across the world for a better life.
Minimum wage in the UK is 5 times higher than the global median salary, putting you in the top 8%, so there’s over seven billion people poorer than you.
I know how stupidly rich we in the UK are compared to most of humanity. But does this mean 'billions' would move here regardless of their ties to home and all the other non-financial factors? It's not an easy thing to quantify but I truly doubt it.
No they wouldnt. Take into account familty ties and our rubbish weather plus the fact social bonds are often better in the poorer countries. Is a poor person on a farm in nigeria really worse off than their counterpart in a newham tower block. Really??
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
Covid showed that the govt budgets are a lot more flexible than people assumed. To be fair the Truss experiment equally showed that markets will be brutal if they do not believe or understand why budgets are being stretched.
I accept it would not be trivial to assure the markets that this is the right course for the economy but with detailed budgeting and good communication (both of which Truss completely shied away from) I don't think it is unrealistic either.
Since Labour want to spend on everything pretty much without limit I'm not sure the markets will agree. Of course they talk about raising taxes here and there as well and then spend the cash raised many times over...
I expect Labour will prioritise spending that they think makes them most likely to get re-elected rather than fix our structural problems. Short termism and penny rich pound poor is not just a Tory issue, it is a reflection of our poor politics and leadership across the board.
Yes
Its a pity the Noneoftheabove user name is already taken
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
The 916,000 (about 1.5% of the population) includes people going once a month, as well as those who never go in person.
These numbers are still a hell of a long way from 47%. The suggestion that the CofE could target the 2/3 of the population that are monarchists, as if they're somehow building on their current 47% is a real stretch.
They currently get about 1% of the population attending a CofE Church a week, and a few more occasionally, so would be better starting with the other 45-46% of the population who tick the box, but do nothing more.
Still, with an average age of 60+, and that's even with all the parents/kids who are told to attend if they want to go to the local school, I wouldn't be betting on any increases any time soon.
2.3 million also attended a Church of England Christmas service in 2019.
The 47% includes Roman Catholics and Baptists or Pentecostals. Agnostic monarchists who might become Christians are more likely to be Church of England than those
The 47% mostly includes people who aren't in any practical way religious at all.
And surely you realise that people who get married in Churches, or go to Christmas services, aren't the same as people who attend mass regularly?
The cost of getting married somewhere as nice as the average CofE Church makes the average CofE Church very attractive.
At Christmas it's like going to a free seasonal concert.
On immigration, can I just take two minutes to voice this unpopular and seldom said opinion?
If someone has the balls and the drive to find their way out of a country in an unstable region, and run the gauntlet of people smugglers, get across the channel in weather P&O wouldn’t dream of sailing in, all whilst not knowing if they will ever see their family again, all for a dream of living in the U.K.; I want them here.
That’s exactly who we need. I’d want to actively compete for them except we don’t need to - they choose us even though we are horrible to them.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
There are literally billions of people who would move across the world for a better life.
Minimum wage in the UK is 5 times higher than the global median salary, putting you in the top 8%, so there’s over seven billion people poorer than you.
I know how stupidly rich we in the UK are compared to most of humanity. But does this mean 'billions' would move here regardless of their ties to home and all the other non-financial factors? It's not an easy thing to quantify but I truly doubt it.
As an example, 10% of the GDP of the Philippines is money remitted by Filipinos working abroad, 2m people, 2% of the population.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
Watching the news. Have to hand it to the French - they know how to protest.
Absolutely
Allez Les Bleus.
Well, kinda. But it's a weirdly adversarial view of the state. Macron isn't making them retire later because he's mean or because he's hoarding all the money for himself. It's not that the government has money whuch ut can choose whether to dole out to a grateful supplicant population. He's doing it because he thinks French people will in the long run be better off by the state taking this course of action. And I don't think it's a controversial view anywhere except France. Anyone protesting is favouring a shift of wealth from young to old. Which is a legitimate view, but an odd priority in the current climate.
I dont think the protests are just about pensions but about 3 years of accumulated frustrations. The covid lockdowns which were brutal in France, then the cost of living crisis due to the Ukraine war and lockdowns.
On immigration, can I just take two minutes to voice this unpopular and seldom said opinion?
If someone has the balls and the drive to find their way out of a country in an unstable region, and run the gauntlet of people smugglers, get across the channel in weather P&O wouldn’t dream of sailing in, all whilst not knowing if they will ever see their family again, all for a dream of living in the U.K.; I want them here.
That’s exactly who we need. I’d want to actively compete for them except we don’t need to - they choose us even though we are horrible to them.
Ah yes just want we want, people who associate with criminals and are happy to break the law....who could want anyone better?
Don't know about anybody else, but catching up on this thread I'm getting increasingly anxious about the huge number of immigrants apparently coming from Peru to settle here.
Are they descendants of Paddington Bear?
It’s the old “Not the 9 O’Clock News” sketch skewering the Tories isn’t it?
“I like curry [marmalade], but now that we’ve got the recipe…..”
On immigration, can I just take two minutes to voice this unpopular and seldom said opinion?
If someone has the balls and the drive to find their way out of a country in an unstable region, and run the gauntlet of people smugglers, get across the channel in weather P&O wouldn’t dream of sailing in, all whilst not knowing if they will ever see their family again, all for a dream of living in the U.K.; I want them here.
That’s exactly who we need. I’d want to actively compete for them except we don’t need to - they choose us even though we are horrible to them.
Ah yes just want we want, people who associate with criminals and are happy to break the law....who could want anyone better?
Don't know about anybody else, but catching up on this thread I'm getting increasingly anxious about the huge number of immigrants apparently coming from Peru to settle here.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
They may live like kings in a narrow financial sense but would you rather live in the peruvian andes or a tower block in newham.
On immigration, can I just take two minutes to voice this unpopular and seldom said opinion?
If someone has the balls and the drive to find their way out of a country in an unstable region, and run the gauntlet of people smugglers, get across the channel in weather P&O wouldn’t dream of sailing in, all whilst not knowing if they will ever see their family again, all for a dream of living in the U.K.; I want them here.
That’s exactly who we need. I’d want to actively compete for them except we don’t need to - they choose us even though we are horrible to them.
Ah yes just want we want, people who associate with criminals and are happy to break the law....who could want anyone better?
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
Given a lot of them 40 odd percent are albanian are gangsters being brought in for country lines and a good percentage of the others are victims of people traffickers then yes sorry fuck off they aren't an advantage to the country they are a pustulent sore that needs lancing
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
That appears to be nearly 10 years out of date, and importantly pre-covid, where a lot of the habitual attendees just stopped going.
And weddings, baptisms and christenings? Really?
Everyone should, by law, still have to be married in the Church of England Church as in the good old days before 1837.
And they should all have to hire an organist, who gets £500 for turning up and £750 more for playing the fucking awful bullshit they usually choose as music.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
There are literally billions of people who would move across the world for a better life.
Minimum wage in the UK is 5 times higher than the global median salary, putting you in the top 8%, so there’s over seven billion people poorer than you.
I know how stupidly rich we in the UK are compared to most of humanity. But does this mean 'billions' would move here regardless of their ties to home and all the other non-financial factors? It's not an easy thing to quantify but I truly doubt it.
As an example, 10% of the GDP of the Philippines is money remitted by Filipinos working abroad, 2m people, 2% of the population.
If only 2% of the seven billion decide to move around, that’s 140m people.
It's a big issue and only going to get bigger with the global inequalities we have and with climate change. However I've been responding to "the whole of the 3rd world would beat a path to our door if they could". This is hyperbole imo, feeds a seize mentality, is used to justify policies and rhetoric that I find not justifiable at all.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
Look at America - where despite considerable efforts to not be inviting to The Global South, the Global South is rocking up there and they’re not running out of people who want to go.
The actual percentages are beside the point. You could trivially double, triple or whatever the U.K. population with immigration. You have two choices - Yes we should, or no we shouldn’t.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
They may live like kings in a narrow financial sense but would you rather live in the peruvian andes or a tower block in newham.
Newham gives a better quality of life, hell even the paris banlieus do
Looks like the Greens are threatening to walk away from the Bute agreement and government if anyone other than Useless wins. Can't think of a more compelling reason to vote for one of the other candidates myself but I, of course, do not have a say in who the next FM is.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
Look at America - where despite considerable efforts to not be inviting to The Global South, the Global South is rocking up there and they’re not running out of people who want to go.
The actual percentages are beside the point. You could trivially double, triple or whatever the U.K. population with immigration. You have two choices - Yes we should, or no we shouldn’t.
Make a choice. Live with it.
Pretending they won’t come isn’t an option.
Do you think the country would be worse if we used immigration to double the uk population?
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
If a few billion people upped and moved to Western countries from poorer countries, then it would cause such major issues that it might be more attractive for us all to move to Peru.
Clearly, the pull for the hypothetical billions is dependent on most of them not moving - in which case, do those hypothetical billions ready to move exist?
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
You only have to look at the large population movements of past centuries, when moving was considerably more difficult than it is now, to see that, yes, huge numbers of people would migrate.
Before my parents-in-law went to the US for a holiday recently they shared a drink with us the night before and my father-in-law joked that they were having an "American wake". This was the tradition in Ireland to hold what was effectively a wake for people before they migrated to America, because the chances are that no-one in Ireland would ever see them again after they left, so there's be no chance to hold a wake for them later when they actually died.
Now, in a world where migrating doesn't have to mean never seeing your family ever again, I am sure that even more people would be willing to move, compared to the many millions who migrated across the Atlantic in prior centuries.
Yes. But huge or HUGE is the question. I think huge.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
Look at America - where despite considerable efforts to not be inviting to The Global South, the Global South is rocking up there and they’re not running out of people who want to go.
The actual percentages are beside the point. You could trivially double, triple or whatever the U.K. population with immigration. You have two choices - Yes we should, or no we shouldn’t.
Make a choice. Live with it.
Pretending they won’t come isn’t an option.
Do you think the country would be worse if we used immigration to double the uk population?
Undoubtedly yes when we can't house those we have, we cant feed those we have, we dont have enough water for those we have, and we can't provide services for those we have. We can send them to russia so you can conscript them instead
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
If a few billion people upped and moved to Western countries from poorer countries, then it would cause such major issues that it might be more attractive for us all to move to Peru.
Clearly, the pull for the hypothetical billions is dependent on most of them not moving - in which case, do those hypothetical billions ready to move exist?
Surely it depends on how much you like marmalade sandwiches.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
Look at America - where despite considerable efforts to not be inviting to The Global South, the Global South is rocking up there and they’re not running out of people who want to go.
The actual percentages are beside the point. You could trivially double, triple or whatever the U.K. population with immigration. You have two choices - Yes we should, or no we shouldn’t.
Make a choice. Live with it.
Pretending they won’t come isn’t an option.
Do you think the country would be worse if we used immigration to double the uk population?
On immigration, can I just take two minutes to voice this unpopular and seldom said opinion?
If someone has the balls and the drive to find their way out of a country in an unstable region, and run the gauntlet of people smugglers, get across the channel in weather P&O wouldn’t dream of sailing in, all whilst not knowing if they will ever see their family again, all for a dream of living in the U.K.; I want them here.
That’s exactly who we need. I’d want to actively compete for them except we don’t need to - they choose us even though we are horrible to them.
They are a lot more use and benefit to us than any number of entitled buffoons from Eton pursueing pseudo-degree courses at Oxford and turning out like the serial liar and haunted hat stands of the tory party of today.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
You only have to look at the large population movements of past centuries, when moving was considerably more difficult than it is now, to see that, yes, huge numbers of people would migrate.
Before my parents-in-law went to the US for a holiday recently they shared a drink with us the night before and my father-in-law joked that they were having an "American wake". This was the tradition in Ireland to hold what was effectively a wake for people before they migrated to America, because the chances are that no-one in Ireland would ever see them again after they left, so there's be no chance to hold a wake for them later when they actually died.
Now, in a world where migrating doesn't have to mean never seeing your family ever again, I am sure that even more people would be willing to move, compared to the many millions who migrated across the Atlantic in prior centuries.
Yes. But huge or HUGE is the question. I think huge.
I think we flatter ourselves into thinking the uk is a huge draw. Unless you are in a war torn country or suffering genuine famine it really isnt. Its a cold windy island with a reasonable standard of living for some but also many social problems. Look at the number of people on antidepressants for example.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
Look at America - where despite considerable efforts to not be inviting to The Global South, the Global South is rocking up there and they’re not running out of people who want to go.
The actual percentages are beside the point. You could trivially double, triple or whatever the U.K. population with immigration. You have two choices - Yes we should, or no we shouldn’t.
Make a choice. Live with it.
Pretending they won’t come isn’t an option.
Do you think the country would be worse if we used immigration to double the uk population?
Why not a population of 500 million?
Would you want that? Are you anti immigration then?
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
That appears to be nearly 10 years out of date, and importantly pre-covid, where a lot of the habitual attendees just stopped going.
And weddings, baptisms and christenings? Really?
Everyone should, by law, still have to be married in the Church of England Church as in the good old days before 1837.
And they should all have to hire an organist, who gets £500 for turning up and £750 more for playing the fucking awful bullshit they usually choose as music.
Not in our church they don't....
Well, bully for your church.
If I have to play 'One More Step Along The World I Go' just once more then a bride will be penetrated by a pipe of a very different sort of organ from the one she was expecting.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
There are literally billions of people who would move across the world for a better life.
Minimum wage in the UK is 5 times higher than the global median salary, putting you in the top 8%, so there’s over seven billion people poorer than you.
I know how stupidly rich we in the UK are compared to most of humanity. But does this mean 'billions' would move here regardless of their ties to home and all the other non-financial factors? It's not an easy thing to quantify but I truly doubt it.
As an example, 10% of the GDP of the Philippines is money remitted by Filipinos working abroad, 2m people, 2% of the population.
If only 2% of the seven billion decide to move around, that’s 140m people.
It's a big issue and only going to get bigger with the global inequalities we have and with climate change. However I've been responding to "the whole of the 3rd world would beat a path to our door if they could". This is hyperbole imo, feeds a seize mentality, is used to justify policies and rhetoric that I find not justifiable at all.
OK, not the whole of the 3rd world. 20% of the third world. And we'd share them with some of Europe, America and Australia. Realistically, just for Britain, we're probably only looking at hundreds of millions. Still feels pretty challenging.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
Look at America - where despite considerable efforts to not be inviting to The Global South, the Global South is rocking up there and they’re not running out of people who want to go.
The actual percentages are beside the point. You could trivially double, triple or whatever the U.K. population with immigration. You have two choices - Yes we should, or no we shouldn’t.
Make a choice. Live with it.
Pretending they won’t come isn’t an option.
Do you think the country would be worse if we used immigration to double the uk population?
Why not a population of 500 million?
Have a real-life example, of a country where the population has gone up 10x in the past 40 years.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
They may live like kings in a narrow financial sense but would you rather live in the peruvian andes or a tower block in newham.
Newham gives a better quality of life, hell even the paris banlieus do
I was talking to my wife's cousin about this the other day - he made the opposite argument (about Sri Lanka versus the UK) - the quality of life in Sri Lanka is going up compared to the UK, because digital technology means that the differences in lifestyle are going down. Meanwhile things like food and weather are so much better there. I found it quite convincing, unfortunately unlike him I don't have a Sri Lankan passport. I think people overestimate how attractive this country is TBH, although of course there are many people who want to come here many who do are here because of conflicts and violence. Poor countries are actually often very nice places to live, even if you're not especially well off. Most people are quite attached to the people and places they know.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
You only have to look at the large population movements of past centuries, when moving was considerably more difficult than it is now, to see that, yes, huge numbers of people would migrate.
Before my parents-in-law went to the US for a holiday recently they shared a drink with us the night before and my father-in-law joked that they were having an "American wake". This was the tradition in Ireland to hold what was effectively a wake for people before they migrated to America, because the chances are that no-one in Ireland would ever see them again after they left, so there's be no chance to hold a wake for them later when they actually died.
Now, in a world where migrating doesn't have to mean never seeing your family ever again, I am sure that even more people would be willing to move, compared to the many millions who migrated across the Atlantic in prior centuries.
Yes. But huge or HUGE is the question. I think huge.
I think we flatter ourselves into thinking the uk is a huge draw. Unless you are in a war torn country or suffering genuine famine it really isnt. Its a cold windy island with a reasonable standard of living for some but also many social problems. Look at the number of people on antidepressants for example.
Go spend an afternoon in a third world slum.
Maybe then you’ll get the point.
As an ex put it - having a breakdown is a first world thing. In Ghana, poor people just hang themselves.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
They may live like kings in a narrow financial sense but would you rather live in the peruvian andes or a tower block in newham.
Seriously? Have you seen Andean mining towns? Newham is honestly an earthly paradise in comparison.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
That appears to be nearly 10 years out of date, and importantly pre-covid, where a lot of the habitual attendees just stopped going.
And weddings, baptisms and christenings? Really?
Everyone should, by law, still have to be married in the Church of England Church as in the good old days before 1837.
And they should all have to hire an organist, who gets £500 for turning up and £750 more for playing the fucking awful bullshit they usually choose as music.
Not in our church they don't....
Well, bully for your church.
If I have to play 'One More Step Along The World I Go' just once more then a bride will be penetrated by a pipe of a very different sort of organ from the one she was expecting.
As will the groom!
Fuck me I hate that song. I managed to block the memory of it for about 35 years until your post. We had an evangelical head of prep school who loved that sort of shit. Whoever wrote it is literally worse than Hitler.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
There are literally billions of people who would move across the world for a better life.
Minimum wage in the UK is 5 times higher than the global median salary, putting you in the top 8%, so there’s over seven billion people poorer than you.
I know how stupidly rich we in the UK are compared to most of humanity. But does this mean 'billions' would move here regardless of their ties to home and all the other non-financial factors? It's not an easy thing to quantify but I truly doubt it.
As an example, 10% of the GDP of the Philippines is money remitted by Filipinos working abroad, 2m people, 2% of the population.
If only 2% of the seven billion decide to move around, that’s 140m people.
It's a big issue and only going to get bigger with the global inequalities we have and with climate change. However I've been responding to "the whole of the 3rd world would beat a path to our door if they could". This is hyperbole imo, feeds a seize mentality, is used to justify policies and rhetoric that I find not justifiable at all.
OK, not the whole of the 3rd world. 20% of the third world. And we'd share them with some of Europe, America and Australia. Realistically, just for Britain, we're probably only looking at hundreds of millions. Still feels pretty challenging.
That just wouldnt happen. Its a hyperbolic argument and I really believe Kinabalu is right on this. Most people in the 3rd world are not desperate to come to the uk.
Looks like the Greens are threatening to walk away from the Bute agreement and government if anyone other than Useless wins. Can't think of a more compelling reason to vote for one of the other candidates myself but I, of course, do not have a say in who the next FM is.
Silver lining to the SNP's clusterfuck leadership contest, anyway.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
They may live like kings in a narrow financial sense but would you rather live in the peruvian andes or a tower block in newham.
Seriously? Have you seen Andean mining towns? Newham is honestly an earthly paradise in comparison.
Bedford town centre would be court of the high angels….
Deliberately walking closely behind someone as they walk home at night Making obscene or aggressive comments towards a person in the street Making obscene or offensive gestures towards a person in the street Obstructing someone's path Driving or riding a vehicle slowly near someone making a journey
Some of those seem very difficult to very difficult to pin down very definite definitions for. What is an offensive gesture? Is it, what the person on the receiving end deems it to be?
Making the "you are a wanker" gesture to someone who has wronged you while out and about is the right of every free born Englishman.
White van man will collapse the criminal justice system!
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I can certainly believe that, yes. Also that many would migrate to the West if they could. But in general they also have strong ties to their own country, don't they. Same elsewhere. That literally billions of people are ready to up-sticks and cross the globe to come and live here is an exaggeration imo.
If what Malmesbury says of Peru is typical - and it sounds entirely plausible to me - then 20% of the global south would up sticks to the west if they could. That must amount to billions, surely - low billions, admittedly. But billions nonetheless. And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians. I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
They may live like kings in a narrow financial sense but would you rather live in the peruvian andes or a tower block in newham.
Seriously? Have you seen Andean mining towns? Newham is honestly an earthly paradise in comparison.
Yes but the surrounding countryside is spectacular.
Comments
https://mobile.twitter.com/Parody_PM/status/1639303703298555923
I am trying to provide consistent and comparable data which requires the same polling companies for each week, as there are significant differences between the polling companies at the moment and including a company, just because it polls in one week but not others, introduces a level of distortion.
Savanta are currently polling on a weekly basis, but have not been consistently over the past 6 months. Other polling companies are fortnightly - Opinion - or monthly - Ipsos, BMG.
Cleaning toilets in London is better than being jobless in the slums of Peru. And there is much more chance of you getting something better.
Do you post that every Friday on here?
I find it fascinating, will keep my eye out for it.
PB is a fine resource
If she's living in a large house she should maybe consider downsizing?
Any property wealth tax could be paid as a charge raised against the property to be paid when the property is eventually sold.
And weddings, baptisms and christenings? Really?
The asset rich, cash poor problem has a variety of possible solutions, e.g. selling up and downsizing.
The care of the elderly is an absolutely immense burden upon the state, and it's simply not reasonable to expect working age taxpayers on collapsing real incomes to fund inflation-proofed (and typically inflation-busting) state pensions for the ever-increasing percentage of the population that's entitled to them, nor to pay to ensure that the well-off old can have their tax bills kept to a minimum, and then pass on their estates tax-free to their heirs when they pop off. The average pensioner household, after housing costs are taken into account, now has a higher disposable income than the average working household, and the triple lock means that pensioners are going to accelerate off into the distance on this measure.
Too much of the nation's wealth is held in property, and the price of housing makes life increasingly difficult and precarious for the poor and the young, who are nonetheless expected effectively to subsidise the luxury spending of middle class pensioners out of their wages. It's not sustainable. Something has to give.
And they should all have to hire an organist, who gets £500 for turning up and £750 more for playing the fucking awful bullshit they usually choose as music.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/37645854
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/9-december/news/uk/c-of-e-mission-statistics-record-another-anomalous-year
54,700 couples get married annually in Church of England churches too
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/biggest-rise-in-church-weddings-since-the-60s-dgb7090dq28
Minimum wage in the UK is 5 times higher than the global median salary, putting you in the top 8%, so there’s over seven billion people poorer than you.
https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i?income=15000&countryCode=GBR&household[adults]=1&household[children]=0
Allez Les Bleus.
These numbers are still a hell of a long way from 47%. The suggestion that the CofE could target the 2/3 of the population that are monarchists, as if they're somehow building on their current 47% is a real stretch.
They currently get about 1% of the population attending a CofE Church a week, and a few more occasionally, so would be better starting with the other 45-46% of the population who tick the box, but do nothing more.
Still, with an average age of 60+, and that's even with all the parents/kids who are told to attend if they want to go to the local school, I wouldn't be betting on any increases any time soon.
One person in an ok job in the U.K. can send home life changing money for the whole family. That’s what my wife does.
That’s the point - yes, you leave your family behind. But that’s what people did in the old days in the West. Plus WhatsApp everywhere.
Go talk to the people who clean the toilets in your office or empty the dishwasher. They’ll explain it to you.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/947972/christmas-church-attendance-in-england/
The 47% includes Roman Catholics and Baptists or Pentecostals. Agnostic monarchists who might become Christians are more likely to be Church of England than those
But it's a weirdly adversarial view of the state. Macron isn't making them retire later because he's mean or because he's hoarding all the money for himself. It's not that the government has money whuch ut can choose whether to dole out to a grateful supplicant population. He's doing it because he thinks French people will in the long run be better off by the state taking this course of action. And I don't think it's a controversial view anywhere except France.
Anyone protesting is favouring a shift of wealth from young to old. Which is a legitimate view, but an odd priority in the current climate.
Are they descendants of Paddington Bear?
is that it is saying "it is OK to be poor, you will get your reward in heaven".
The protestors regard the retirement age as a Right and expect the government to find the money to pay for it. Because Rights trump everything.
Before my parents-in-law went to the US for a holiday recently they shared a drink with us the night before and my father-in-law joked that they were having an "American wake". This was the tradition in Ireland to hold what was effectively a wake for people before they migrated to America, because the chances are that no-one in Ireland would ever see them again after they left, so there's be no chance to hold a wake for them later when they actually died.
Now, in a world where migrating doesn't have to mean never seeing your family ever again, I am sure that even more people would be willing to move, compared to the many millions who migrated across the Atlantic in prior centuries.
https://www.statista.com/topics/8943/labor-migrants-from-the-philippines/#topicOverview
If only 2% of the seven billion decide to move around, that’s 140m people.
On my visits to Peru I’ve given out quite a number of Paddingtons to various children. After the movies came out, suddenly they’ve been remembered….
Its a pity the Noneoftheabove user name is already taken
And surely you realise that people who get married in Churches, or go to Christmas services, aren't the same as people who attend mass regularly?
The cost of getting married somewhere as nice as the average CofE Church makes the average CofE Church very attractive.
At Christmas it's like going to a free seasonal concert.
If someone has the balls and the drive to find their way out of a country in an unstable region, and run the gauntlet of people smugglers, get across the channel in weather P&O wouldn’t dream of sailing in, all whilst not knowing if they will ever see their family again, all for a dream of living in the U.K.; I want them here.
That’s exactly who we need. I’d want to actively compete for them except we don’t need to - they choose us even though we are horrible to them.
And why wouldn't you? The poorest Brits love like kings compared to the majority of Peruvians.
I'm very fond of where I live. I value home anf local ties. I'm sure Peruvians feel the same. But if I lived the life of an Andean silver miner all the warm feelings from familiar views couldn't really compete with the pull factors of clean water and the giddy thrill of my kids probably living to adulthood.
“I like curry [marmalade], but now that we’ve got the recipe…..”
The actual percentages are beside the point. You could trivially double, triple or whatever the U.K. population with immigration. You have two choices - Yes we should, or no we shouldn’t.
Make a choice. Live with it.
Pretending they won’t come isn’t an option.
https://twitter.com/auroreberge/status/1639322502198448128
"He is so small, he won't be able to escape. Fire, baseball bat, iron bar..."
Clearly, the pull for the hypothetical billions is dependent on most of them not moving - in which case, do those hypothetical billions ready to move exist?
If I have to play 'One More Step Along The World I Go' just once more then a bride will be penetrated by a pipe of a very different sort of organ from the one she was expecting.
As will the groom!
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ARE/uae/population
I think people overestimate how attractive this country is TBH, although of course there are many people who want to come here many who do are here because of conflicts and violence. Poor countries are actually often very nice places to live, even if you're not especially well off. Most people are quite attached to the people and places they know.
Maybe then you’ll get the point.
As an ex put it - having a breakdown is a first world thing. In Ghana, poor people just hang themselves.
https://twitter.com/Agitate4Change/status/1639302697827311617