Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Why LAB continues to be flattered by the polls – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,753
edited September 2023 in General
imageWhy LAB continues to be flattered by the polls – politicalbetting.com

On the face of it the latest Wikipedia polling table is very good for LAB and the party is heading for a landslide whenever the election is called

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,734
    Yes, Johnson is off the stage, and so is Cobyn. Everybody can go back to voting Lib Dem. Quite safely.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    You can argue about whether to call it AI, but the real world applications are becoming seriously interesting.

    As artificial intelligence goes multimodal, medical applications multiply
    https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adk6139
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,578
    edited September 2023

    Again I note that the 1997 election saw a significant fall in turnout compared with 1992. Landslides are partly about switchers... and partly about people choosing to sit on their hands.

    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" as Tory Edmund Burke might have commented on ye-olde-pb.com.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 601
    RWC - FRA-URU. Somebody didnt read the script....that was supposed to be a record score....well done URU!

    I also predict a record score for NZ in tonights gsme.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    Fishing said:

    Again I note that the 1997 election saw a significant fall in turnout compared with 1992. Landslides are partly about switchers... and partly about people choosing to sit on their hands.

    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" as Tory Edmund Burke might have commented on ye-olde-pb.com.
    You can also switch the epithets, of course.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.
  • Options
    Is there any data from previous elections (1997 may be the best comparison, not because the outcomes will be similar [we don't know that yet], but because the overarching narrative this far out is similar)?

    In, say, March 1996, how many Con voters from GE1992 were saying they didn't know which way they'd vote? And what did the voting pattern of GE1992 Con voters end up looking like in GE1997?

    If we can find out, that could be a major piece of evidence to help us decide whether the betting markets this time are about right, or whether they really are consistently overrating the chances of a Lab majority, as you've been saying for some while, Mike.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702

    Is there any data from previous elections (1997 may be the best comparison, not because the outcomes will be similar [we don't know that yet], but because the overarching narrative this far out is similar)?

    In, say, March 1996, how many Con voters from GE1992 were saying they didn't know which way they'd vote? And what did the voting pattern of GE1992 Con voters end up looking like in GE1997?

    If we can find out, that could be a major piece of evidence to help us decide whether the betting markets this time are about right, or whether they really are consistently overrating the chances of a Lab majority, as you've been saying for some while, Mike.

    But the big difference - and it underlies the story in the lead - is that whilst we have a government that is utterly discredited in most people’s eyes, we don’t have an opposition with anything like the credibility or that is generating anything like the hope and enthusiasm (misplaced though much of it turned out to be) that Blair’s government in waiting did in 1996-97.
  • Options

    Is there any data from previous elections (1997 may be the best comparison, not because the outcomes will be similar [we don't know that yet], but because the overarching narrative this far out is similar)?

    In, say, March 1996, how many Con voters from GE1992 were saying they didn't know which way they'd vote? And what did the voting pattern of GE1992 Con voters end up looking like in GE1997?

    If we can find out, that could be a major piece of evidence to help us decide whether the betting markets this time are about right, or whether they really are consistently overrating the chances of a Lab majority, as you've been saying for some while, Mike.

    My main gripe about the OP is the suggestion that voting Tory is the "normal pattern" of those 2019 Tory voters who are undecided. Some will have voted Tory for the first time in 2019, some will be 'swing voters' who backed the Tories from 2010-2019 and Labour before that, some may be 2015 UKIP voters who backed the Tories after the EU referendum. Overall, these undecided voters are surely much less loyal to the Tories than those who are currently telling the pollsters that they are voting Tory.

  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    Doesn't We Think (formerly Omnisis) allocate the DK respondants to their former vote? Or is it one of the other pollsters?

    A few things make me sceptical of Mike's assertion that they will vote for Sunak.

    1) they are saying DK for a reason, and whatever that reason it needs to be taken seriously.

    2) a curious thing about DKs is the gender split. Women are twice as likely to be recorded as DK than men, though equally likely to vote. Whether we call this open mindedness or indecisiveness it is a true phenomenon. Women are a demographic that breaks strongly for Labour.

    I don't think the DKs will save Sunaks bacon.
  • Options
    2019 was indeed an anomaly, so a return to some semblance of normality is (hopefully) likely. I'm still of the belief that the Tories will claw back some support, but not enough to win or form a govt. Lab will likely end up with a smallish maj, with the Libs picking up votes in the so called "blue wall" and the SNP losing seats. It could even be the case that Lab needs a resurgent LibDem party with 25-35 seats to govern. I can't yet see a landslide on current polling. The public feeling of time for a change is now strongly bedded in and palpable and that is a very hard thing to shift.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    Heathener said:

    For the umpteenth time, the 2019 Get Brexit Done election was atypical.

    For the umpteenth time - you’re wrong.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    Foxy said:

    Doesn't We Think (formerly Omnisis) allocate the DK respondants to their former vote? Or is it one of the other pollsters?

    A few things make me sceptical of Mike's assertion that they will vote for Sunak.

    1) they are saying DK for a reason, and whatever that reason it needs to be taken seriously.

    2) a curious thing about DKs is the gender split. Women are twice as likely to be recorded as DK than men, though equally likely to vote. Whether we call this open mindedness or indecisiveness it is a true phenomenon. Women are a demographic that breaks strongly for Labour.

    I don't think the DKs will save Sunaks bacon.

    I think probably the Shy Tory factor is becoming a thing again (who would admit to actually *voting* for these lunatics?) so some may switch back.

    To my mind the more interesting question will be the underlying trend. It seems to me perfectly possible the Tories will see multiple southern seats slip away while consolidating their hold on the midlands and the semi-rural north.

    Voting patterns are changing, although I wish they’d change faster.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    Foxy said:

    Doesn't We Think (formerly Omnisis) allocate the DK respondants to their former vote? Or is it one of the other pollsters?

    A few things make me sceptical of Mike's assertion that they will vote for Sunak.

    1) they are saying DK for a reason, and whatever that reason it needs to be taken seriously.

    2) a curious thing about DKs is the gender split. Women are twice as likely to be recorded as DK than men, though equally likely to vote. Whether we call this open mindedness or indecisiveness it is a true phenomenon. Women are a demographic that breaks strongly for Labour.

    I don't think the DKs will save Sunaks bacon.

    It may be Opinium that I have in mind:

    "Our new methodology fixes that, because it weights up the 2019 Conservative voters who do give a voting intention to account for the fact that others are undecided. This is the main reason our Labour lead is smaller than it otherwise would have been.

    We believe this is the more accurate way of reflecting voting intention midterm, although no method is perfect. The main reason for this is because, when we squeeze the voting intentions of those 2019 Conservative voters who are undecided, the majority say they would still vote Conservative if they were forced.

    However, it will mean a shift is required in the way our polls are analysed. For the past few months people have generally considered the high number of Conservative don’t knows to be a caveat against the high Labour poll leads. In our case, the opposite is now true. The existence of the high number of 2019 Conservative undecided voters is more likely to increase the Labour lead at a later date rather than decrease it."

    https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/uk-voting-intention-27th-january-2022-2/

    In Mike's table the lead for Opinium is less than other pollsters, but still 15%. That last sentence in the Quote above is worth digesting.

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    edited September 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Doesn't We Think (formerly Omnisis) allocate the DK respondants to their former vote? Or is it one of the other pollsters?

    A few things make me sceptical of Mike's assertion that they will vote for Sunak.

    1) they are saying DK for a reason, and whatever that reason it needs to be taken seriously.

    2) a curious thing about DKs is the gender split. Women are twice as likely to be recorded as DK than men, though equally likely to vote. Whether we call this open mindedness or indecisiveness it is a true phenomenon. Women are a demographic that breaks strongly for Labour.

    I don't think the DKs will save Sunaks bacon.

    I think probably the Shy Tory factor is becoming a thing again (who would admit to actually *voting* for these lunatics?) so some may switch back.

    To my mind the more interesting question will be the underlying trend. It seems to me perfectly possible the Tories will see multiple southern seats slip away while consolidating their hold on the midlands and the semi-rural north.

    Voting patterns are changing, although I wish they’d change faster.
    I think likely to be a double whammy, Tories losing in both Red Wall (due to the social and economic failure of Levelling Up) and losing in the Blue Wall too (Brexit and knee jerk populism).
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Doesn't We Think (formerly Omnisis) allocate the DK respondants to their former vote? Or is it one of the other pollsters?

    A few things make me sceptical of Mike's assertion that they will vote for Sunak.

    1) they are saying DK for a reason, and whatever that reason it needs to be taken seriously.

    2) a curious thing about DKs is the gender split. Women are twice as likely to be recorded as DK than men, though equally likely to vote. Whether we call this open mindedness or indecisiveness it is a true phenomenon. Women are a demographic that breaks strongly for Labour.

    I don't think the DKs will save Sunaks bacon.

    I think probably the Shy Tory factor is becoming a thing again (who would admit to actually *voting* for these lunatics?) so some may switch back.

    To my mind the more interesting question will be the underlying trend. It seems to me perfectly possible the Tories will see multiple southern seats slip away while consolidating their hold on the midlands and the semi-rural north.

    Voting patterns are changing, although I wish they’d change faster.
    I think likely to be a double whammy, Tories losing in both Red Wall (due to the social and economic failure of Levelling Up) and losing in the Blue Wall too (Brexit and knee jerk populism).
    If they continue to cancel projects to improve northern infrastructure while boasting about the success of Crossrail (which was a bigger mess than ever HS2 has become) I agree it might make it harder.

    What I think however too many people are underestimating is the depth of antipathy towards Labour in those areas. They are still deeply unpopular for their decades of being taken for granted. At least with the Tories it’s only been four years.

    Low turnout might be the key to the Tories hanging on.

    Am I certain? No. Do I think it possible? Yes.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,215
    "The vast majority of GE2019 voters who currently say they don’t know are surely going to end up voting for their 2019 choice."

    Sounds like pure faith to me.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,677
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Doesn't We Think (formerly Omnisis) allocate the DK respondants to their former vote? Or is it one of the other pollsters?

    A few things make me sceptical of Mike's assertion that they will vote for Sunak.

    1) they are saying DK for a reason, and whatever that reason it needs to be taken seriously.

    2) a curious thing about DKs is the gender split. Women are twice as likely to be recorded as DK than men, though equally likely to vote. Whether we call this open mindedness or indecisiveness it is a true phenomenon. Women are a demographic that breaks strongly for Labour.

    I don't think the DKs will save Sunaks bacon.

    I think probably the Shy Tory factor is becoming a thing again (who would admit to actually *voting* for these lunatics?) so some may switch back.

    To my mind the more interesting question will be the underlying trend. It seems to me perfectly possible the Tories will see multiple southern seats slip away while consolidating their hold on the midlands and the semi-rural north.

    Voting patterns are changing, although I wish they’d change faster.
    I think likely to be a double whammy, Tories losing in both Red Wall (due to the social and economic failure of Levelling Up) and losing in the Blue Wall too (Brexit and knee jerk populism).
    What I think however too many people are underestimating is the depth of antipathy towards Labour in those areas. They are still deeply unpopular for their decades of being taken for granted.
    I thought that theory has been disproven in latest polling? A bit old hat.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,677
    edited September 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Doesn't We Think (formerly Omnisis) allocate the DK respondants to their former vote? Or is it one of the other pollsters?

    A few things make me sceptical of Mike's assertion that they will vote for Sunak.

    1) they are saying DK for a reason, and whatever that reason it needs to be taken seriously.

    2) a curious thing about DKs is the gender split. Women are twice as likely to be recorded as DK than men, though equally likely to vote. Whether we call this open mindedness or indecisiveness it is a true phenomenon. Women are a demographic that breaks strongly for Labour.

    I don't think the DKs will save Sunaks bacon.

    I think probably the Shy Tory factor is becoming a thing again

    Pure wishful thinking yd I'm afraid. At least try and keep this fact based.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,041
    edited September 2023
    Techne, More in Common and Opinium all reallocate Don’t Knows according to past vote. They do tend to show slightly lower Labour leads than the other pollsters, but not by *that* much. I’d expect 2019 Tory voters who now say DK to mostly break for the Tories, but I suspect many won’t vote at all. Where they’re located is also pretty crucial.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,677
    edited September 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    For the umpteenth time, the 2019 Get Brexit Done election was atypical.

    For the umpteenth time - you’re wrong.
    Well, then counter it with cogent arguments - same goes for you @Casino_Royale if you're going to 'like' a throwaway.

    Nothing in recent polling, including voter party allegiance, the demise of 'Brexit' as a factor, and the positivity towards Labour in the Red Wall, gives any credence to what I suspect to be mere wishful thinking on your part?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,027
    edited September 2023
    FPT but apt here.

    Who was that modest self effacing fellow who wrote at the weekend that he had doubts about Labour winning a majority?

    Sir Keir Starmer’s chances of forming a majority government have been dealt a blow, according to a poll that reveals support for Labour in Scotland is drifting back to the SNP.

    In a reversal of a trend showing Labour almost neck and neck with the nationalists, research for YouGov put clear water between the parties, giving the SNP an 11-point advantage.

    The survey is a welcome boost for Humza Yousaf, the first minister, before the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election, his first major electoral test since replacing Nicola Sturgeon in March.

    Sir John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, said the shift would not be enough for the SNP to win in Rutherglen on October 5. Postal votes for the by-election will be sent out on Friday.

    The poll puts support for the SNP at a general election at 38 per cent, up two points since last month, while backing for Labour fell by five points to 27 per cent. Under Westminster boundaries, this would mean the SNP winning 39 seats while Labour would return 11, a significant increase from the ones the party has at present. The SNP holds 44 Westminster seats.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-risks-losing-seats-as-scottish-support-for-snp-rises-cx7dmcsgw
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,027
    edited September 2023
    I had a top up on the SNP to hold the by election.

    Starmer could be in deep shit if he fails to win any of the three by elections.
  • Options
    Good news for the Union though.

    Despite the apparent boost to the SNP’s fortunes, backing for independence fell three points to 39 per cent while an unchanged 44 per cent of people said they wanted to remain in the Union. This left 16 per cent who said they were either undecided, would not vote or refused to reveal their preference.
  • Options

    FPT but apt here.

    Who was that modest self effacing fellow who wrote at the weekend that he had doubts about Labour winning a majority?

    Sir Keir Starmer’s chances of forming a majority government have been dealt a blow, according to a poll that reveals support for Labour in Scotland is drifting back to the SNP.

    In a reversal of a trend showing Labour almost neck and neck with the nationalists, research for YouGov put clear water between the parties, giving the SNP an 11-point advantage.

    The survey is a welcome boost for Humza Yousaf, the first minister, before the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election, his first major electoral test since replacing Nicola Sturgeon in March.

    Sir John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, said the shift would not be enough for the SNP to win in Rutherglen on October 5. Postal votes for the by-election will be sent out on Friday.

    The poll puts support for the SNP at a general election at 38 per cent, up two points since last month, while backing for Labour fell by five points to 27 per cent. Under Westminster boundaries, this would mean the SNP winning 39 seats while Labour would return 11, a significant increase from the ones the party has at present. The SNP holds 44 Westminster seats.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-risks-losing-seats-as-scottish-support-for-snp-rises-cx7dmcsgw

    Humza surprising on the upside?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,027
    edited September 2023

    FPT but apt here.

    Who was that modest self effacing fellow who wrote at the weekend that he had doubts about Labour winning a majority?

    Sir Keir Starmer’s chances of forming a majority government have been dealt a blow, according to a poll that reveals support for Labour in Scotland is drifting back to the SNP.

    In a reversal of a trend showing Labour almost neck and neck with the nationalists, research for YouGov put clear water between the parties, giving the SNP an 11-point advantage.

    The survey is a welcome boost for Humza Yousaf, the first minister, before the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election, his first major electoral test since replacing Nicola Sturgeon in March.

    Sir John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, said the shift would not be enough for the SNP to win in Rutherglen on October 5. Postal votes for the by-election will be sent out on Friday.

    The poll puts support for the SNP at a general election at 38 per cent, up two points since last month, while backing for Labour fell by five points to 27 per cent. Under Westminster boundaries, this would mean the SNP winning 39 seats while Labour would return 11, a significant increase from the ones the party has at present. The SNP holds 44 Westminster seats.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-risks-losing-seats-as-scottish-support-for-snp-rises-cx7dmcsgw

    Humza surprising on the upside?
    Indeed.

    It’s another good poll for Humza Yousaf after the Redfield & Wilton one.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277

    I had a top up on the SNP to hold the by election.

    Starmer could be in deep shit if he fails to win any of the three by elections.

    Yes, nats are very sticky, and despite the fiasco of the last year, the SNP are the only game in town.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277

    FPT but apt here.

    Who was that modest self effacing fellow who wrote at the weekend that he had doubts about Labour winning a majority?

    Sir Keir Starmer’s chances of forming a majority government have been dealt a blow, according to a poll that reveals support for Labour in Scotland is drifting back to the SNP.

    In a reversal of a trend showing Labour almost neck and neck with the nationalists, research for YouGov put clear water between the parties, giving the SNP an 11-point advantage.

    The survey is a welcome boost for Humza Yousaf, the first minister, before the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election, his first major electoral test since replacing Nicola Sturgeon in March.

    Sir John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, said the shift would not be enough for the SNP to win in Rutherglen on October 5. Postal votes for the by-election will be sent out on Friday.

    The poll puts support for the SNP at a general election at 38 per cent, up two points since last month, while backing for Labour fell by five points to 27 per cent. Under Westminster boundaries, this would mean the SNP winning 39 seats while Labour would return 11, a significant increase from the ones the party has at present. The SNP holds 44 Westminster seats.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-risks-losing-seats-as-scottish-support-for-snp-rises-cx7dmcsgw

    Humza surprising on the upside?
    Indeed.

    It’s another good poll for Humza Yousaf after the Redfield & Wilton one.
    Time for a Scottish thread Sunday?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,516
    edited September 2023

    FPT but apt here.

    Who was that modest self effacing fellow who wrote at the weekend that he had doubts about Labour winning a majority?

    Sir Keir Starmer’s chances of forming a majority government have been dealt a blow, according to a poll that reveals support for Labour in Scotland is drifting back to the SNP.

    In a reversal of a trend showing Labour almost neck and neck with the nationalists, research for YouGov put clear water between the parties, giving the SNP an 11-point advantage.

    The survey is a welcome boost for Humza Yousaf, the first minister, before the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election, his first major electoral test since replacing Nicola Sturgeon in March.

    Sir John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, said the shift would not be enough for the SNP to win in Rutherglen on October 5. Postal votes for the by-election will be sent out on Friday.

    The poll puts support for the SNP at a general election at 38 per cent, up two points since last month, while backing for Labour fell by five points to 27 per cent. Under Westminster boundaries, this would mean the SNP winning 39 seats while Labour would return 11, a significant increase from the ones the party has at present. The SNP holds 44 Westminster seats.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-risks-losing-seats-as-scottish-support-for-snp-rises-cx7dmcsgw

    Humza surprising on the upside?
    Indeed.

    It’s another good poll for Humza Yousaf after the Redfield & Wilton one.
    Another couple of points for the smirking at the GSTK thing on their way.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    FPT but apt here.

    Who was that modest self effacing fellow who wrote at the weekend that he had doubts about Labour winning a majority?

    Sir Keir Starmer’s chances of forming a majority government have been dealt a blow, according to a poll that reveals support for Labour in Scotland is drifting back to the SNP.

    In a reversal of a trend showing Labour almost neck and neck with the nationalists, research for YouGov put clear water between the parties, giving the SNP an 11-point advantage.

    The survey is a welcome boost for Humza Yousaf, the first minister, before the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election, his first major electoral test since replacing Nicola Sturgeon in March.

    Sir John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, said the shift would not be enough for the SNP to win in Rutherglen on October 5. Postal votes for the by-election will be sent out on Friday.

    The poll puts support for the SNP at a general election at 38 per cent, up two points since last month, while backing for Labour fell by five points to 27 per cent. Under Westminster boundaries, this would mean the SNP winning 39 seats while Labour would return 11, a significant increase from the ones the party has at present. The SNP holds 44 Westminster seats.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-risks-losing-seats-as-scottish-support-for-snp-rises-cx7dmcsgw

    Humza surprising on the upside?
    Indeed.

    It’s another good poll for Humza Yousaf after the Redfield & Wilton one.
    Time for a Scottish thread Sunday?

    Sadly not.

    I have a very busy weekend so both threads are written already.
  • Options
    'Those that don't know, don't vote.'
  • Options
    Penddu2 said:

    RWC - FRA-URU. Somebody didnt read the script....that was supposed to be a record score....well done URU!

    I also predict a record score for NZ in tonights gsme.

    Careful, Penddu. Many more like last's night forecast and people will start calling you Penddudamus!

    Agree with you about NZ tonite though.
  • Options
    Icarus said:

    Based on a brief visit to Mid Beds on Sunday with 8 from Leicestershire -the Tories are going to lose (Nadine/Boris and general incompetence) - I can't tell you who is going to win though.

    Thanks Icarus.

    Your reports are much appreciated.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,581
    edited September 2023
    Good morning

    On Scotland it does seem to be taking an eternity for Police Scotland to conclude their investigation into the SNP and in the event little comes from it, then a SNP recovery may be on the cards

    On Starmer and Cooper 'terrorist' small boats policy it has gone down like a lead balloon across the political spectrum with the Guardian leading the outcry and allowing the conservatives to accuse labour of an open door immigration policy

    And as far as I can tell last nights locals were hardly stellar for labour

    And we have a year left to GE 24

    I still expect a labour majority but the size of it I am very uncertain
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Doesn't We Think (formerly Omnisis) allocate the DK respondants to their former vote? Or is it one of the other pollsters?

    A few things make me sceptical of Mike's assertion that they will vote for Sunak.

    1) they are saying DK for a reason, and whatever that reason it needs to be taken seriously.

    2) a curious thing about DKs is the gender split. Women are twice as likely to be recorded as DK than men, though equally likely to vote. Whether we call this open mindedness or indecisiveness it is a true phenomenon. Women are a demographic that breaks strongly for Labour.

    I don't think the DKs will save Sunaks bacon.

    I think probably the Shy Tory factor is becoming a thing again

    Pure wishful thinking yd I'm afraid. At least try and keep this fact based.
    You really are a hypocrite.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Doesn't We Think (formerly Omnisis) allocate the DK respondants to their former vote? Or is it one of the other pollsters?

    A few things make me sceptical of Mike's assertion that they will vote for Sunak.

    1) they are saying DK for a reason, and whatever that reason it needs to be taken seriously.

    2) a curious thing about DKs is the gender split. Women are twice as likely to be recorded as DK than men, though equally likely to vote. Whether we call this open mindedness or indecisiveness it is a true phenomenon. Women are a demographic that breaks strongly for Labour.

    I don't think the DKs will save Sunaks bacon.

    It may be Opinium that I have in mind:

    "Our new methodology fixes that, because it weights up the 2019 Conservative voters who do give a voting intention to account for the fact that others are undecided. This is the main reason our Labour lead is smaller than it otherwise would have been.

    We believe this is the more accurate way of reflecting voting intention midterm, although no method is perfect. The main reason for this is because, when we squeeze the voting intentions of those 2019 Conservative voters who are undecided, the majority say they would still vote Conservative if they were forced.

    However, it will mean a shift is required in the way our polls are analysed. For the past few months people have generally considered the high number of Conservative don’t knows to be a caveat against the high Labour poll leads. In our case, the opposite is now true. The existence of the high number of 2019 Conservative undecided voters is more likely to increase the Labour lead at a later date rather than decrease it."

    https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/uk-voting-intention-27th-january-2022-2/

    In Mike's table the lead for Opinium is less than other pollsters, but still 15%. That last sentence in the Quote above is worth digesting.

    Yes - and it highlights once again that beneath the headline polling figures are ASSUMPTIONS that may or may not be correct.

    PB’ers should be particularly careful not to argue against poll results on the basis of their own assumptions - i.e. thinking the don’t knows will break for the Tories - when the pollster has already made that same assumption and built it into its results.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702

    Icarus said:

    Based on a brief visit to Mid Beds on Sunday with 8 from Leicestershire -the Tories are going to lose (Nadine/Boris and general incompetence) - I can't tell you who is going to win though.

    Thanks Icarus.

    Your reports are much appreciated.
    Almost as good as Leon assuring us that the Tories will win it?
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    Icarus said:

    Based on a brief visit to Mid Beds on Sunday with 8 from Leicestershire -the Tories are going to lose (Nadine/Boris and general incompetence) - I can't tell you who is going to win though.

    Thanks Icarus.

    Your reports are much appreciated.
    Almost as good as Leon assuring us that the Tories will win it?
    Icarus and I go back a long way, Ian. His father rescued mine from The Western Desert in 1942.

    Won't hear a word against him!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,232
    Is it time to lay Joe Biden?

    CNN, Wash Post and NY Times all having a go at him today. Have the party higher-ups decided that they can’t run him again in 2024, and are going to try and nominate someone else such as Newsom?

    https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1702402539591966999?s=61

    Shame they can’t all agree to a maximum age of 70, then we can have two lots of primaries with neither Biden nor Trump getting in the way!
  • Options
    IcarusIcarus Posts: 924

    Icarus said:

    Based on a brief visit to Mid Beds on Sunday with 8 from Leicestershire -the Tories are going to lose (Nadine/Boris and general incompetence) - I can't tell you who is going to win though.

    Thanks Icarus.

    Your reports are much appreciated.
    Advised one voter that would be swamped with leaflets - keep them, weigh them and vote for which ever party's is heaviest. (Lib Dem a cert!)

    Also asked by a (female) voter about Lib Dems views on what a woman is - I said they had a vagina which I hope is now party policy!
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 853
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Doesn't We Think (formerly Omnisis) allocate the DK respondants to their former vote? Or is it one of the other pollsters?

    A few things make me sceptical of Mike's assertion that they will vote for Sunak.

    1) they are saying DK for a reason, and whatever that reason it needs to be taken seriously.

    2) a curious thing about DKs is the gender split. Women are twice as likely to be recorded as DK than men, though equally likely to vote. Whether we call this open mindedness or indecisiveness it is a true phenomenon. Women are a demographic that breaks strongly for Labour.

    I don't think the DKs will save Sunaks bacon.

    It may be Opinium that I have in mind:

    "Our new methodology fixes that, because it weights up the 2019 Conservative voters who do give a voting intention to account for the fact that others are undecided. This is the main reason our Labour lead is smaller than it otherwise would have been.

    We believe this is the more accurate way of reflecting voting intention midterm, although no method is perfect. The main reason for this is because, when we squeeze the voting intentions of those 2019 Conservative voters who are undecided, the majority say they would still vote Conservative if they were forced.

    However, it will mean a shift is required in the way our polls are analysed. For the past few months people have generally considered the high number of Conservative don’t knows to be a caveat against the high Labour poll leads. In our case, the opposite is now true. The existence of the high number of 2019 Conservative undecided voters is more likely to increase the Labour lead at a later date rather than decrease it."

    https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/uk-voting-intention-27th-january-2022-2/

    In Mike's table the lead for Opinium is less than other pollsters, but still 15%. That last sentence in the Quote above is worth digesting.

    I agree. Opinium acts as a useful baseline to test what the lead would be if unsure former Tory voters return to the fold. In practice these voters may only be 60% or 80% Tory, so it is an assumption that is generous to the Tories (albeit it may be closer to the truth than not allocating them at all).

    And even with that generous assumption the Labour lead has been around 15% plus or minus a couple of points.

    So to stop a Labour majority the Tories need to rely on more than undecided former voters returning home.
  • Options

    'Those that don't know, don't vote.'

    Good morning all - I think this is a neat summation of what I am thinking.

    In 2019 I witnessed a phenomenon. Low voting Labour areas where suddenly there was a huge turnout. Records smashed according to staff at these polling stations. Then I watched these boxes tipped and tallied them - a Tory landslide.

    Never mind a majority of 80, it could have been a majority of 100 had the ultra right not run a spoiler campaign in seats like Stockton North to let Labour cling on.

    My hypothesis is that most of these non voters who turned Tory in 2019 won't vote. In key seats this will be a significant number of the DKs. If the Tory vote sinks heavily and the Labour vote rises a little, it will be a Labour gain.

    Elsewhere we know a lot of Tories are both sick of and sickened by this government. As we saw in 1997, several million Tory voters are likely to sit on their hands. The commentary on polling posted above said that most DKs would break Tory "if forced". But they won't be forced. Starmer is not Jezbollah, there is no panic issue to force a reluctant Tory vote.

    So we could probably go back to late 96 and look at the polls and the DKs and say the same about the Tory deficit then. Don't worry. Tory DKs will vote Tory. No, they won't.
  • Options
    Icarus said:

    Icarus said:

    Based on a brief visit to Mid Beds on Sunday with 8 from Leicestershire -the Tories are going to lose (Nadine/Boris and general incompetence) - I can't tell you who is going to win though.

    Thanks Icarus.

    Your reports are much appreciated.
    Advised one voter that would be swamped with leaflets - keep them, weigh them and vote for which ever party's is heaviest. (Lib Dem a cert!)

    Also asked by a (female) voter about Lib Dems views on what a woman is - I said they had a vagina which I hope is now party policy!
    Sounds dangerously close to flirtation, Icarus. Does Mrs Icarus know what you get up to when 'canvassing'?
  • Options

    'Those that don't know, don't vote.'

    Good morning all - I think this is a neat summation of what I am thinking.

    In 2019 I witnessed a phenomenon. Low voting Labour areas where suddenly there was a huge turnout. Records smashed according to staff at these polling stations. Then I watched these boxes tipped and tallied them - a Tory landslide.

    Never mind a majority of 80, it could have been a majority of 100 had the ultra right not run a spoiler campaign in seats like Stockton North to let Labour cling on.

    My hypothesis is that most of these non voters who turned Tory in 2019 won't vote. In key seats this will be a significant number of the DKs. If the Tory vote sinks heavily and the Labour vote rises a little, it will be a Labour gain.

    Elsewhere we know a lot of Tories are both sick of and sickened by this government. As we saw in 1997, several million Tory voters are likely to sit on their hands. The commentary on polling posted above said that most DKs would break Tory "if forced". But they won't be forced. Starmer is not Jezbollah, there is no panic issue to force a reluctant Tory vote.

    So we could probably go back to late 96 and look at the polls and the DKs and say the same about the Tory deficit then. Don't worry. Tory DKs will vote Tory. No, they won't.
    I think this is right. My only caveat is that a 1997 style seat tally for Labour is highly unlikely (not that you are predicting this, I don't think). But a Labour majority - probably a small one - is the most likely outcome IMHO, if you look across the range of evidence.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,777
    Icarus said:

    Icarus said:

    Based on a brief visit to Mid Beds on Sunday with 8 from Leicestershire -the Tories are going to lose (Nadine/Boris and general incompetence) - I can't tell you who is going to win though.

    Thanks Icarus.

    Your reports are much appreciated.
    Advised one voter that would be swamped with leaflets - keep them, weigh them and vote for which ever party's is heaviest. (Lib Dem a cert!)

    Also asked by a (female) voter about Lib Dems views on what a woman is - I said they had a vagina which I hope is now party policy!
    Cheers. I have been waiting on tenterhooks for your report.
  • Options
    Meanwhile, Tory MPs continue to hold up legislation to assist people renting so that they can literally line their own pockets.

    https://www.ft.com/content/d7d5cfb2-d392-48a1-99ea-3567c8f5e552
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,119
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277

    'Those that don't know, don't vote.'

    Good morning all - I think this is a neat summation of what I am thinking.

    In 2019 I witnessed a phenomenon. Low voting Labour areas where suddenly there was a huge turnout. Records smashed according to staff at these polling stations. Then I watched these boxes tipped and tallied them - a Tory landslide.

    Never mind a majority of 80, it could have been a majority of 100 had the ultra right not run a spoiler campaign in seats like Stockton North to let Labour cling on.

    My hypothesis is that most of these non voters who turned Tory in 2019 won't vote. In key seats this will be a significant number of the DKs. If the Tory vote sinks heavily and the Labour vote rises a little, it will be a Labour gain.

    Elsewhere we know a lot of Tories are both sick of and sickened by this government. As we saw in 1997, several million Tory voters are likely to sit on their hands. The commentary on polling posted above said that most DKs would break Tory "if forced". But they won't be forced. Starmer is not Jezbollah, there is no panic issue to force a reluctant Tory vote.

    So we could probably go back to late 96 and look at the polls and the DKs and say the same about the Tory deficit then. Don't worry. Tory DKs will vote Tory. No, they won't.
    I think this is right. My only caveat is that a 1997 style seat tally for Labour is highly unlikely (not that you are predicting this, I don't think). But a Labour majority - probably a small one - is the most likely outcome IMHO, if you look across the range of evidence.
    I wouldn't say that a 1997 style seat tally is highly unlikely. Every poll says it is currently highly likely, and has done so for a year.

    We may well believe that the polling will change, but shouldn't delude ourselves by double counting 2019 Tory DK responders.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    'Those that don't know, don't vote.'

    Good morning all - I think this is a neat summation of what I am thinking.

    In 2019 I witnessed a phenomenon. Low voting Labour areas where suddenly there was a huge turnout. Records smashed according to staff at these polling stations. Then I watched these boxes tipped and tallied them - a Tory landslide.

    Never mind a majority of 80, it could have been a majority of 100 had the ultra right not run a spoiler campaign in seats like Stockton North to let Labour cling on.

    My hypothesis is that most of these non voters who turned Tory in 2019 won't vote. In key seats this will be a significant number of the DKs. If the Tory vote sinks heavily and the Labour vote rises a little, it will be a Labour gain.

    Elsewhere we know a lot of Tories are both sick of and sickened by this government. As we saw in 1997, several million Tory voters are likely to sit on their hands. The commentary on polling posted above said that most DKs would break Tory "if forced". But they won't be forced. Starmer is not Jezbollah, there is no panic issue to force a reluctant Tory vote.

    So we could probably go back to late 96 and look at the polls and the DKs and say the same about the Tory deficit then. Don't worry. Tory DKs will vote Tory. No, they won't.
    I think this is right. My only caveat is that a 1997 style seat tally for Labour is highly unlikely (not that you are predicting this, I don't think). But a Labour majority - probably a small one - is the most likely outcome IMHO, if you look across the range of evidence.
    I wouldn't say that a 1997 style seat tally is highly unlikely. Every poll says it is currently highly likely, and has done so for a year.

    We may well believe that the polling will change, but shouldn't delude ourselves by double counting 2019 Tory DK responders.
    I do think the VI polling gives a misleading picture and that a small majority is a more likely outcome, based on my empirical work.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 601

    Penddu2 said:

    RWC - FRA-URU. Somebody didnt read the script....that was supposed to be a record score....well done URU!

    I also predict a record score for NZ in tonights gsme.

    Careful, Penddu. Many more like last's night forecast and people will start calling you Penddudamus!

    Agree with you about NZ tonite though.
    That sounds like the village I was born....

    Looking back I should have expected that. France can be very unmotivated at times - saving themselves for the big matches (especially England) and just going through the motions for the other games.
    But NZ are usually ruthless and clinical - will compete for everything.
    The more interesting games start on Saturday
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    edited September 2023
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    In the last 7 days about 1400 small boat arrivals have been recorded. Three Bibby Stockholms needed for these alone.

    Meanwhile both the Tories prison hulk and Rwanda plans have completely failed.

    Banging on about their own failures isn't likely to help Sunak.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,964
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,138

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    Italy's processed that number of people in just a day, and determined them "illegals"? Kudos to them for a first-rate processing system.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,964
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    In the last 7 days about 1400 small boat arrivals have been recorded. Three Bibby Stockholms needed for these alone.

    Meanwhile both the Tories prison hulk and Rwanda plans have completely failed.

    Banging on about their own failures isn't likely to help Sunak.
    Ah more little Englanderism from people who cant look beyond these shores.

    Try looking at the total mess the EU is in re migration and then explain to me why we would want to jump in to it.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702

    IanB2 said:

    Icarus said:

    Based on a brief visit to Mid Beds on Sunday with 8 from Leicestershire -the Tories are going to lose (Nadine/Boris and general incompetence) - I can't tell you who is going to win though.

    Thanks Icarus.

    Your reports are much appreciated.
    Almost as good as Leon assuring us that the Tories will win it?
    Icarus and I go back a long way, Ian. His father rescued mine from The Western Desert in 1942.

    Won't hear a word against him!
    You should really declare a prejudicial personal interest and leave the room.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,119
    Events on the migrant front might also overwhelm the EU before the UK GE. See here





    EU countries are increasingly talking about a Rwanda type solution, even as Starmer explicitly rules that out for the UK. How does he square that circle? “Come to the UK we won’t send you to Rwanda, unlike the EU” is not a brilliant message to put out there

    I reckon the EU will have to try *something like* Rwanda - as hard right governments are elected across the bloc - because the only alternative after that is simply turning the boats away and letting them drown, which voters (understandably) cannot stomach; but neither are these huge waves of migrants sustainable as things stand
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    edited September 2023

    Foxy said:

    'Those that don't know, don't vote.'

    Good morning all - I think this is a neat summation of what I am thinking.

    In 2019 I witnessed a phenomenon. Low voting Labour areas where suddenly there was a huge turnout. Records smashed according to staff at these polling stations. Then I watched these boxes tipped and tallied them - a Tory landslide.

    Never mind a majority of 80, it could have been a majority of 100 had the ultra right not run a spoiler campaign in seats like Stockton North to let Labour cling on.

    My hypothesis is that most of these non voters who turned Tory in 2019 won't vote. In key seats this will be a significant number of the DKs. If the Tory vote sinks heavily and the Labour vote rises a little, it will be a Labour gain.

    Elsewhere we know a lot of Tories are both sick of and sickened by this government. As we saw in 1997, several million Tory voters are likely to sit on their hands. The commentary on polling posted above said that most DKs would break Tory "if forced". But they won't be forced. Starmer is not Jezbollah, there is no panic issue to force a reluctant Tory vote.

    So we could probably go back to late 96 and look at the polls and the DKs and say the same about the Tory deficit then. Don't worry. Tory DKs will vote Tory. No, they won't.
    I think this is right. My only caveat is that a 1997 style seat tally for Labour is highly unlikely (not that you are predicting this, I don't think). But a Labour majority - probably a small one - is the most likely outcome IMHO, if you look across the range of evidence.
    I wouldn't say that a 1997 style seat tally is highly unlikely. Every poll says it is currently highly likely, and has done so for a year.

    We may well believe that the polling will change, but shouldn't delude ourselves by double counting 2019 Tory DK responders.
    I do think the VI polling gives a misleading picture and that a small majority is a more likely outcome, based on my empirical work.
    I fully understand why Tories want to talk up their chances, and Labour/LD one's to talk down their own, each wanting to keep their foot soldiers motivated. Play to the whistle.

    There does come a point where it becomes a denial of reality though.
  • Options

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,138

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    In the last 7 days about 1400 small boat arrivals have been recorded. Three Bibby Stockholms needed for these alone.

    Meanwhile both the Tories prison hulk and Rwanda plans have completely failed.

    Banging on about their own failures isn't likely to help Sunak.
    Ah more little Englanderism from people who cant look beyond these shores.

    Try looking at the total mess the EU is in re migration and then explain to me why we would want to jump in to it.
    Well it would annoy you for starters, so there's that.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,964
    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    In the last 7 days about 1400 small boat arrivals have been recorded. Three Bibby Stockholms needed for these alone.

    Meanwhile both the Tories prison hulk and Rwanda plans have completely failed.

    Banging on about their own failures isn't likely to help Sunak.
    Ah more little Englanderism from people who cant look beyond these shores.

    Try looking at the total mess the EU is in re migration and then explain to me why we would want to jump in to it.
    Well it would annoy you for starters, so there's that.
    Always good fun, but hardly the basis of a national policy
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,119

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,138

    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    In the last 7 days about 1400 small boat arrivals have been recorded. Three Bibby Stockholms needed for these alone.

    Meanwhile both the Tories prison hulk and Rwanda plans have completely failed.

    Banging on about their own failures isn't likely to help Sunak.
    Ah more little Englanderism from people who cant look beyond these shores.

    Try looking at the total mess the EU is in re migration and then explain to me why we would want to jump in to it.
    Well it would annoy you for starters, so there's that.
    Always good fun, but hardly the basis of a national policy
    You don't really care about policy; you're just an angry partisan.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    In the last 7 days about 1400 small boat arrivals have been recorded. Three Bibby Stockholms needed for these alone.

    Meanwhile both the Tories prison hulk and Rwanda plans have completely failed.

    Banging on about their own failures isn't likely to help Sunak.
    Ah more little Englanderism from people who cant look beyond these shores.

    Try looking at the total mess the EU is in re migration and then explain to me why we would want to jump in to it.
    It isn't just an EU problem, it is a worldwide one. It is why the USA is having the same issue, Costa Rica is full of Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, Bangladesh and Thailand full of Burmese, South Africa full of Zimbabweans and Nigerians and Iran full of Afghans.

  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,819
    Foxy said:

    In the last 7 days about 1400 small boat arrivals have been recorded. Three Bibby Stockholms needed for these alone.

    Meanwhile both the Tories prison hulk and Rwanda plans have completely failed.

    Banging on about their own failures isn't likely to help Sunak.

    ...
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    The Rwanda deal is for 1000 over 5 years. We had that many in 5 days last week.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    No. We need a solution at the European level but that doesn't mean we go along with something that's not right. There may be no solution that can be agreed by countries working together, but there will certainly be no solution if we don't even try.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,964

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    Despite our belly aching the UK is escaping quite lightly from what is a worldwide problem. The EU got in to this mess when Merkel invited the world to Germany and then backtracked when the Germans saw the mess they were in suddenly the Germans decided it must be a European problem. This problem will go on for years as the EU has too many fault lines to be able to sort it out.

    Starmers proposal is pure nonsense which will simply lead to further bad relations with the EU,

    The UK needs to stop griping and sort its problem out by itself.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,119
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    The Rwanda deal is for 1000 over 5 years. We had that many in 5 days last week.
    It might just work as a deterrent. We don’t know until we actually TRY

    If the whole EU can find some remote but safe island to send all these people to (much more likely given the size of the EU) what would you say? Would it suddenly become “acceptable”?
  • Options

    I had a top up on the SNP to hold the by election.

    Starmer could be in deep shit if he fails to win any of the three by elections.

    He won't be in deep shit, any more than he was after failing to gain Uxbridge. FWIW - I think he should win Tamworth, might just miss out in Mid-Beds and will probably lose Rutherglen to the SNP.

    None of that would mean he's not on course to win. It will just reinforce his caution.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    An argument for a May 24 GE is that next summers migrant arrival figures are very unlikely to be Sunaks advantage.

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,964

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    No. We need a solution at the European level but that doesn't mean we go along with something that's not right. There may be no solution that can be agreed by countries working together, but there will certainly be no solution if we don't even try.
    "We need a solution at the European level but that doesn't mean we go along with something that's not right."

    You clearly havent understood how the EU works
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    I didn't see the original posting till I clicked - rather taken aback to find it was SKS.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    Sandpit said:

    Is it time to lay Joe Biden?

    CNN, Wash Post and NY Times all having a go at him today. Have the party higher-ups decided that they can’t run him again in 2024, and are going to try and nominate someone else such as Newsom?

    https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1702402539591966999?s=61

    Shame they can’t all agree to a maximum age of 70, then we can have two lots of primaries with neither Biden nor Trump getting in the way!

    US columnists are almost always wrong about everything.
    There was a similar (and rather more widespread) 'campaign' to make DeSantis the GOP nominee several months ago. It went nowhere.

    The party itself seems to be making no such moves, for now.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    The Rwanda deal is for 1000 over 5 years. We had that many in 5 days last week.
    It might just work as a deterrent. We don’t know until we actually TRY

    If the whole EU can find some remote but safe island to send all these people to (much more likely given the size of the EU) what would you say? Would it suddenly become “acceptable”?
    It is a fantasy to think that there is any country that wants to take these arrivals from us or the EU. Many of their own countries refuse them.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,120

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    I agree. We should be on the ground floor. Like this

    image
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,120

    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    In the last 7 days about 1400 small boat arrivals have been recorded. Three Bibby Stockholms needed for these alone.

    Meanwhile both the Tories prison hulk and Rwanda plans have completely failed.

    Banging on about their own failures isn't likely to help Sunak.
    Ah more little Englanderism from people who cant look beyond these shores.

    Try looking at the total mess the EU is in re migration and then explain to me why we would want to jump in to it.
    Well it would annoy you for starters, so there's that.
    Always good fun, but hardly the basis of a national policy
    As usual, there is one policy that has been identified that would work. Cut off the demand for super cheap, undocumented labour.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    Despite our belly aching the UK is escaping quite lightly from what is a worldwide problem. The EU got in to this mess when Merkel invited the world to Germany and then backtracked when the Germans saw the mess they were in suddenly the Germans decided it must be a European problem. This problem will go on for years as the EU has too many fault lines to be able to sort it out.

    Starmers proposal is pure nonsense which will simply lead to further bad relations with the EU,...
    It's not pure nonsense, since it also includes some attempt properly to resource the processing of migrants.

    And the idea of attempting to do some sort of deal with the EU isn't entirely daft - but it's a waste of his breath going into it now.


  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,298

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    We deported far more people who had arrived through irregular channels when we were in the EU than now.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,138

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    No. We need a solution at the European level but that doesn't mean we go along with something that's not right. There may be no solution that can be agreed by countries working together, but there will certainly be no solution if we don't even try.
    "We need a solution at the European level but that doesn't mean we go along with something that's not right."

    You clearly havent understood how the EU works
    The current EU asylum systems focus on things like qualifying rules, and the humane treatment of refugees. The EU wouldn't and couldn't decide that you must export your refugees to Rwanda. No member state could be obliged to do so.

    It is you who does not understand how the EU works.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,193
    Sandpit said:

    Is it time to lay Joe Biden?

    No, because there are no methods other than death, impeachment and the 25th to remove him if he doesn't want to stand down. Which he doesn't. At least part of his thinking is that he's going to have to be POTUS to pardon that shitstain Hunter.
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    In the last 7 days about 1400 small boat arrivals have been recorded. Three Bibby Stockholms needed for these alone.

    Meanwhile both the Tories prison hulk and Rwanda plans have completely failed.

    Banging on about their own failures isn't likely to help Sunak.
    Ah more little Englanderism from people who cant look beyond these shores.

    Try looking at the total mess the EU is in re migration and then explain to me why we would want to jump in to it.
    You do post in such haughty tones.

    It is a fact that 1,400 have arrived. It is a fact that 3 ships the size of the Bibby Poxdeath would be needed - it's called "adding". How is pointing that out little englanderism?
  • Options
    On topic (is there a flag for that) I'm in this category, 2019 Tory currently don't know.

    If you put a gun to my head I'd probably vote Lib Dem next time (so long as the candidate isn't a NIMBY) but if the Lib Dem is a NIMBY then I'd be more likely to vote for Starmer's Labour than Sunak's Tories.
  • Options

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    No. We need a solution at the European level but that doesn't mean we go along with something that's not right. There may be no solution that can be agreed by countries working together, but there will certainly be no solution if we don't even try.
    So your rhetoric about a 'European solution' is really just a tactic to oppose the UK (or any other individual government) doing anything other than accepting more people.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277

    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    In the last 7 days about 1400 small boat arrivals have been recorded. Three Bibby Stockholms needed for these alone.

    Meanwhile both the Tories prison hulk and Rwanda plans have completely failed.

    Banging on about their own failures isn't likely to help Sunak.
    Ah more little Englanderism from people who cant look beyond these shores.

    Try looking at the total mess the EU is in re migration and then explain to me why we would want to jump in to it.
    Well it would annoy you for starters, so there's that.
    Always good fun, but hardly the basis of a national policy
    As usual, there is one policy that has been identified that would work. Cut off the demand for super cheap, undocumented labour.
    The asylum seekers that I know via my church do not work, not least because it breaks the terms of their application.

    Actually processing applications in reasonable time may help reduce the number undocumented.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    The Rwanda deal is for 1000 over 5 years. We had that many in 5 days last week.
    It might just work as a deterrent. We don’t know until we actually TRY

    If the whole EU can find some remote but safe island to send all these people to (much more likely given the size of the EU) what would you say? Would it suddenly become “acceptable”?
    But we can't even try. Work the plan backwards - we need to catch them, detain them, legally process them, issue an expulsion order, find an airline. Only then do they get to go to Rwanda.

    But we can't intern them. We can't process their claims. So we can't declare them illegal and deport them. Can't you see that?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is it time to lay Joe Biden?

    No, because there are no methods other than death, impeachment and the 25th to remove him if he doesn't want to stand down. Which he doesn't. At least part of his thinking is that he's going to have to be POTUS to pardon that shitstain Hunter.
    Is it ?
    I seriously doubt he'd do any such thing.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    A cash-for visas scandal hits Poland's strongly anti-migration government, weeks before elections
    Poland's President Andrzej Duda says he is awaiting results of an investigation into allegations that Polish consulates sold a quarter of a million work visas to migrants from Asia and Africa for thousands of dollars
    https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cash-visas-scandal-hits-polands-strongly-anti-migration-103191137
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is it time to lay Joe Biden?

    CNN, Wash Post and NY Times all having a go at him today. Have the party higher-ups decided that they can’t run him again in 2024, and are going to try and nominate someone else such as Newsom?

    https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1702402539591966999?s=61

    Shame they can’t all agree to a maximum age of 70, then we can have two lots of primaries with neither Biden nor Trump getting in the way!

    US columnists are almost always wrong about everything.
    There was a similar (and rather more widespread) 'campaign' to make DeSantis the GOP nominee several months ago. It went nowhere.

    The party itself seems to be making no such moves, for now.
    I would disagree on your last sentence. @Sandpit is right that there has been a noticeable uptick in columnists from Democrat leaning outlets calling on Biden to step down. The Washington Post had an opinion piece last week saying both Biden and Harris should step down and let somebody else take over.

    The problem the Democrats have with Biden is that, while usually they should benefit from voters voting against Trump, that is largely negated because of the widespread perception that a vote in 2024 for Biden is really a vote for President Harris and not many voters are keen on that. So both parties have a problem when it comes to the 'people voting against X' issue.
  • Options

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    The Rwanda deal is for 1000 over 5 years. We had that many in 5 days last week.
    It might just work as a deterrent. We don’t know until we actually TRY

    If the whole EU can find some remote but safe island to send all these people to (much more likely given the size of the EU) what would you say? Would it suddenly become “acceptable”?
    But we can't even try. Work the plan backwards - we need to catch them, detain them, legally process them, issue an expulsion order, find an airline. Only then do they get to go to Rwanda.

    But we can't intern them. We can't process their claims. So we can't declare them illegal and deport them. Can't you see that?
    No we don't. Their claims can be processed in Rwanda if the plan is implemented, that's how Australia did it. Anyone detained is immediately extradited, no questions asked, at which point nobody crosses by that method since nobody wants that fate.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is it time to lay Joe Biden?

    CNN, Wash Post and NY Times all having a go at him today. Have the party higher-ups decided that they can’t run him again in 2024, and are going to try and nominate someone else such as Newsom?

    https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1702402539591966999?s=61

    Shame they can’t all agree to a maximum age of 70, then we can have two lots of primaries with neither Biden nor Trump getting in the way!

    US columnists are almost always wrong about everything.
    There was a similar (and rather more widespread) 'campaign' to make DeSantis the GOP nominee several months ago. It went nowhere.

    The party itself seems to be making no such moves, for now.
    I would disagree on your last sentence. @Sandpit is right that there has been a noticeable uptick in columnists from Democrat leaning outlets calling on Biden to step down. The Washington Post had an opinion piece last week saying both Biden and Harris should step down and let somebody else take over.

    As I said, columnists are irrelevant as far as this is concerned.

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,119
    V

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    The Rwanda deal is for 1000 over 5 years. We had that many in 5 days last week.
    It might just work as a deterrent. We don’t know until we actually TRY

    If the whole EU can find some remote but safe island to send all these people to (much more likely given the size of the EU) what would you say? Would it suddenly become “acceptable”?
    But we can't even try. Work the plan backwards - we need to catch them, detain them, legally process them, issue an expulsion order, find an airline. Only then do they get to go to Rwanda.

    But we can't intern them. We can't process their claims. So we can't declare them illegal and deport them. Can't you see that?
    Germany seems quite keen, nonetheless

    “Germany 'wants EU to adopt 'Rwanda-style' migrant system with asylum seekers deported - similar to Britain's proposed scheme'”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12176903/Germany-wants-EU-adopt-Rwanda-style-migrant-system.html
  • Options

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    It's a European problem and can only be handled at the European level. The fact that the Tories have shat all over our relationship with the rest of Europe makes that harder than it needs to be, but Starmer should be applauded for trying.
    What if a newly hard right EU decides on something like Rwanda? Do we eagerly join in with them just because it’s an EU policy, even though we decided that was too evil and immoral for the UK alone?
    The Rwanda deal is for 1000 over 5 years. We had that many in 5 days last week.
    It might just work as a deterrent. We don’t know until we actually TRY

    If the whole EU can find some remote but safe island to send all these people to (much more likely given the size of the EU) what would you say? Would it suddenly become “acceptable”?
    But we can't even try. Work the plan backwards - we need to catch them, detain them, legally process them, issue an expulsion order, find an airline. Only then do they get to go to Rwanda.

    But we can't intern them. We can't process their claims. So we can't declare them illegal and deport them. Can't you see that?
    It was intended to act as a disincentive to reduce the numbers.

    We could avoid 'nasty' policies like this if we replaced a system based on an automatic right to asylum that's open to 8 billion people to one where we selectively invite people, as we've done with Ukraine and Hong Kong.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384
    Oh good, the Ig Nobel Prizes are out now:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/sep/14/reanimated-spiders-and-smart-toilets-triumph-at-ig-nobel-prizes

    'Focusing on the other end of the digestive system, this year’s Ig Nobel prize for public health was awarded to researchers for the development of a smart toilet that uses various technologies to monitor human waste for signs of disease and an anal-print sensor as part of its system to identify the user.

    The award for medicine went to researchers who used cadavers to explore whether each of an individual’s nostrils contains an equal number of hairs, while the communication prize was scooped by scientists who have conducted investigations, including neuroimaging analyses, into people who are expert at speaking backwards.

    Elsewhere, the literature prize went to researchers exploring the peculiar feeling that can arise when the same word is repeatedly written – a phenomenon they say is an example of “jamais vu”, whereby people find the familiar to be unfamiliar – while the prize for physics went to researchers who discovered that the sexual activity of anchovies, which gather at night off the Galician coast to spawn, can create small whirls that mix different layers of water in the oceans.'

    Some interesting stuff - and deeper than the uninformed viewer might think: for instance, those anchovies could be bringing up nutrient-rich deep water to the photosynthetic zone at the surface. Which has interesting implications as they'd be laying their planktonic eggs into that same water, I should think.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,119

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is daft.
    Not even convinced it's effective politics:
    ...Labour also announced plans to treat criminals involved in cross-Channel people-smuggling as terrorists and labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”...

    The expansion of the category of 'terrorist' to include this who are just unpleasant criminals is bad policy.

    It’s almost as if they have no intention of doing it but are just hoping for a good headline in the Mail
    It's the use of "un-British" to describe anyone who disagrees with him that's particularly crass.

    It was offensive bullshit from the Tories, and it's equally so from him.
    Not clever at all.
    His mishandling of the migrants issue is the first thing, in many months, that has made me question if Starmer will get an overall majority

    I’ve always thought Starmer would come a cropper on the small boats (he has no plan, and will be even more spineless than the Tories). But the reckoning might come sooner than the GE

    These are not good headlines for Labour




    It;s the sheer stupidity of putting his trust in a benign Europe,

    Germany currently is saying it wont take any more migrants and yesterday Italy got hammered with a huge number of illegals - 6000 in a day .

    The UK will just end up a dumping ground since the EU cant cope.
    We deported far more people who had arrived through irregular channels when we were in the EU than now.
    Did we? Citation required
This discussion has been closed.