Categories
Sunak-Braverman: Misreading the public mood on immigration? – politicalbetting.com
Sunak-Braverman: Misreading the public mood on immigration? – politicalbetting.com
With the much anticipated ONS 2022 immigration stats arriving shortly, its time for a quick thread on where the public are on immigration drawing on my report last year with @MarleyAMorris and @IPPR . TL;DR – public is not where you might expect!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
(The findings in the header, I mean, not me being first.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan however makes clear he still welcomes immigrants as Mayor of the socially liberal capital, making a change from Starmer and Cooper who have accused the government 'of failing to get a grip on immigration' as they try and appeal to the much more immigration hostile redwall
https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1661656627102007298?s=20
https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1661657110923313158?s=20
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
First one is @SeanT, second @SeanT, third.....
Yup, they are all @SeanTs
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/24/desantis-twitter-campaign-glitch-00098748
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1635626844228657152
I think there should be a ban on the reporting of forecasts.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx5GTtFbgp8
He makes a strong case that this issue is going to balloon in salience over the next few years.
I think 'it's not the legal migration it's the illegal I don't like' is a fairly common view and to me it may indicate participants conflating the small boats (which have got all the attention) with overall immigration levels.
We are penalising people for getting jobs. It's the Laffer curve in action. And then people are surprised that people don't get jobs.
Jason Roy set to end England deal to play in America's Major League Cricket
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/65711625
https://twitter.com/KarlTurnerMP/status/1661684272925638659?s=20
UKIP went from just 6% in the 1999 EU Parliament elections in the UK to 15% in 2004, 16% in 2009 and then topped the poll in 2014 with 26%. Pressure of leaking Tory votes to UKIP then forced Cameron as PM to concede the promise of an EU referendum if the Tories won a majority in 2015
A new video has been released showing the moment a Ukrainian naval drone impacts the Ivan Khurs. The damage sustained by the Russian ship is unknown. The Russian Defense Ministry claimed to have destroyed all the drones.
https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1661727122577326080
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/holistic-approach-launchers-exploration-europe-josef-aschbacher
This guy - how long before he gets kicked out of his job for daring to talk sense?
When it impacted the ship.
Then we can get back to organising our calendar in a sensible way and not have to worry about those competitions or players.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
The interesting question is how the video was relayed back to the Ukrainians.
If you want the EU to be a single country, then that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but its not what a majority of this country ever wanted. And unless or until the EU becomes a single nation then when it comes to immigration into this country it was absolutely extremely discriminatory in the past with citizens of some other countries able to move here freely and draconian restrictions on non-EU migrants.
By having a level playing field people are treated more fairly regardless of nationality.
Since I oppose discrimination, I think a level playing field is a good thing.
Racist shitbags like the BNP and UKIP etc have long been in favour of voting reform to Proportional Representation because it will make it easier for racist shitbags to be elected to Parliament. If a Liberal Democrat votes for proportional representation in a referendum then does that mean they're voting with and for racist shitbags?
You can applaud as much as you like the increase in non-EU immigration but your fellow travellers most certainly did not want more immigration.
Perhaps you, @Richard_Tyndall and six others purport to welcome immigration. The vast majority of Leave voters voted Leave to end/reduce immigration.
But whatever gets you through the day.
So may well have ended up with an EU referendum anyway with UKIP having won a few more FPTP seats and with the DUP holding the balance of power in a hung parliament rather than the narrow Tory majority we got
Myself, @Sandpit , @Richard_Tyndall and the five others who welcome immigration have got what we wanted.
The racist shitbags have not got what they wanted.
So if anyone was played, it was the racist shitbags. And if racist shitbags don't get what they want, then what's the harm in that?
There are sound reasons why different pairs of countries have different migration statuses, which are sometimes asymmetrical. A lot could depend on the level of economic integration between the countries. The EU's single-market approach requires freedom of movement of labour for citizens of member countries for perfectly sound reasons. It acknowledges that labour is part of that market.
Of course a big booster to their campaign was the fact the EU elections became proportional representation - something long desired by racist shitbag parties of all stripes as it makes it much easier for them to get elected. Which is why the EU elections had significant numbers of racist shitbags elected but Parliament does not.
I'm curious if @TOPPING will answer as to whether everyone who voted Yes to AV in 2011 as Farage wanted and Farage campaigned in favour of was voting with and for racist shitbags? As that's his logic.
1999 - 6%
2004 - 15%
2009 - 16%
2014 - 26%
Australia and NZ have FOM.
Is that racist against countries with whom there is no similar arrangement? Only an utter nut job would argue thus.
It is also not necessarily racist to prefer lower immigration. Let us be honest that the volumes of migration since the late 90s have been unprecedentedly massive.
It’s true that Nigel Farage in particular flirted with racist tropes during the Brexit campaign, and xenophobia of various types, including outright racism, likely swung the vote to Brexit.
Brexiters have to live with that.
Now you may want to argue that discrimination was a good thing. If so, please feel free to argue why we should discriminate against Asians, Africans, Americans, Australians etc but discriminate in favour of Europeans.
But it 100% was absolutely and unequivocally discriminatory. Treating people differently based on their nationality is an absolute definition of discrimination.
The "failure" of the government to bring immigration down shows that they are at the least on friendly terms with reality, and they deserve some small praise for not going full racist shitbag (although there are still some in cabinet that have deeply problematic views).
The question is, has leaving the EU drawn the racist poison out of the body politic, or given them succour to continue to the next stage? Are we at a "this far and no further" point, or did we step onto a well-greased but gentle incline?
You're confusing effects and motives. To have any kind of border means "discriminating" on the basis of nationality. But the motivation doesn't have to be sinister.
Now sound arguments are made as to why that discrimination is a good thing: the reciprocity, the small numbers involved (New Zealanders make up only 7.5% of Australia's overseas born population) etc
Its possible to be discriminatory and for the discrimination to be a good thing. The problem is, that the UK's discrimination until recently was not a good thing - Australia makes it a lot easier for non-NZ migrants to migrate to Australia than the UK did for non-EU migrants.
"Increase in hate crimes after the Brexit referendum suggest that the result created a public information shock, which in turn led to a re-evaluation of society’s tolerance towards racist action and induced some individuals to commit a hate crime."
Interesting that having unleashed this the govt then acted swiftly to try to curtail it, so the study says.
Personally I thought at the time that wasn’t a good idea.
The aim isn’t to curtail immigration, the aim is to keep immigration numbers aligned with the aims of growing wages per capita, housebuilding, services provision, and addressing labour shortages in key areas.
Brexit is the new Thatcher.
As they say, not everyone who voted Leave was a racist, while everyone who was a racist voted Leave.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65706748
But it also emboldened racists that they were living in a country that "didn't like immigration".
See also Jeremy Corbyn, for emboldening racists.
That's troll logic.
I don’t comment on hypothetical counterfactuals made up by WEF-fearing loons.
England players salaries have historically always been very low compared to the revenue generated - because you have no choice which country you play for - so the ECB could get away with underpaying.
ECB gets £220m per year from Sky - vast majority of that relates to international cricket. But how much goes to England players? I would say about £20m.
In most professional sports the players get well over 50% of the revenue generated.
Whereas the ECB has historically spent all kinds of money on various projects, admin etc (plus in fairness supporting the counties).
Going forward this will have to change. They'll need to move top England players on to say £2m+ and everyone playing regularly will need to be on £1m+. So probably £50m to the players (allowing for all formats you are probably looking at about 30-35 England players).
But the ECB can do that if they want to. They will just have to get real and take on the competition.
Jeremy Corbyn emboldened racists within the Labour party to think that it was ok to be racist.
The referendum result emboldened racists in the UK to think that it was ok to be racist.
Not every Lab Party member is racist, not every Leave voter is racist.
But their actions (Jezza and Leave as exemplified by Nige) emboldened racists.
Meanwhile, the Animal Sentience Committee has finally been set up, after a year's delay - this is a genuinely positive measure with five independent experts monitoring what the Government does on animal welfare. To be fair, it's not often that Governments set up bodies to challenge Ministers, and they deserve credit for it
I'm also not sure that the vast majority is about test cricket. Sky shows the T20 Blast through the summer, and also County Champs games too. I get that the international games are huge, but Sky are buying the whole package, not just internationals.
Ostpolitik, maybe.
Who’d be a Tory in the North West?
Is this another broken Tory / Brexit promise?
How do they schedule 14 Tests a year when they only have Australia, India and Pakistan to play (and the latter only because the IPL bans their players)?