Categories
Options
Big issues – politicalbetting.com
Big issues – politicalbetting.com
To what extent is immigration a top issue for Britons?Economy: 54% is A top issue / 30% is THE top issueImmigration: 41% / 20%Health: 41% / 13%Environment: 25% / 9%Housing: 21% / 5%https://t.co/3h4cfRDkfo pic.twitter.com/2Tq5sjNi1A
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"Is th PM concerned he is forecast to become the first Tory ĺeader to be beaten by a fellow Thatcherite"
https://youtu.be/4nm4XBmKCKY?si=AkUpgEg6ewUplx0i
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
I agree (with Leon) that 'right' and 'left' don't help at all here - as is much more generally the case. Among the countries most keen to police their borders are those often considered 'left' - Cuba, N Korea, China.
The problem is that two good principles are not compatible: The principal that every country has the right to police their borders is not fully consonant with the right to flee persecution and seek asylum.
The other problem is that all asylum seekers are equal but some are more equal than others. We don't hear an awful lot about being swamped or invaded by people from Hong Kong or Ukraine.
I agree of course that large numbers of people are taking the Michael, but that is largely a problem because of UK Home Office incompetence over decades.
What’s the point of this then?
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366562217/Money-at-heart-of-Post-Office-Horizon-scandal-blame
Indeed, the Iron Lady popped in for a convivial tea with Gordon Brown following some extremely complimentary comments by him about her in 2007 (although of course he never beat a Tory leader - as PM at least).
The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming
And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense
it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.
It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.
Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
That's a picture of the "Dancercise" group that used to be regulars at our parades. (I haven't seen them since the COVID pandemic, but hope they will come back next year.)
The ladies are, as you can probably guess from the picture, likely to be at least well off and well-educated. And that is why this is a picture of the obesity problem in the US: It is mostly a problem for the poor and those with little education. (Which is pretty unusual, historically.)
We subsidize obesity in various ways, notably: "SNAP benefits supplied roughly 40 million Americans in 2018, at an expenditure of $57.1 billion.[2][3] Approximately 9.2% of American households obtained SNAP benefits at some point during 2017, with approximately 16.7% of all children living in households with SNAP benefits.[2] Beneficiaries and costs increased sharply with the Great Recession, peaked in 2013 and declined through 2017 as the economy recovered.[2] It is the largest nutrition program of the 15 administered by FNS and is a key component of the social safety net for low-income Americans." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program
(There are also significant charity contributions of food. They are important enough in some places so that, for example, a drug addict in San Francisco can get enough food to live on them, and sell his SNAP benefits for cash to buy drugs.)
Recently, Dr. Leanna Wen, who writes on medical issues in the Washington Post, toyed with the idea of modifying SNAP to cut back on obesity. That might be a good idea medically, but it is absolute death, politically.
In this way it seems to behave a little like foreign policy and "standards in public life", which tend to alternate between very low salience and suddenly very high.
Contrast with other topics, notably the economy, healthcare and the environment that are far less volatile - always there or thereabouts on the lists of important topics.
For Labour I think this is a double edged sword. The focus on immigration is definitely damaging the Tories, but at the expense of Reform and apathy. Whereas a focus on the economy or, in particular, the state of public services like health and education, has more of a chance of moving votes across the floor to Labour.
Quality of the evidence against the subpostmasters: Computer, weakly.
https://twitter.com/willglloyd/status/1731316958614769986
Under parliamentary supremacy a law which contradicts a previous law was not a problem: in fact, that was often the point of it. But certain laws are ongoing, and judges take the position that a later law which contradicts those laws is wrong. The theory is that if Parliament deliberately contradicts those laws then Parliament, having stated its will in a considered manner, should take precedence
(ie telling the EHRC to fuck off by accident or by insinuation is not good enough, but telling them deliberately may work)
As ever IANAL and I am famously stupid
As to the immigration issue I think there are really quite a lot of illegal immigrants here that don't appear in the numbers, and big numbers of 'tourists' that are nothing of the kind.
After all, the Supreme Court judges went to a lot of trouble to point out in their judgment - as though to a small and not very bright child - that it wasn't just a question of the ECHR.
The government literally set a new target of 600,000 overseas students per year in 2020, because it wants/needs their cash. Now they have achieved it they are angry about it. Can't you see how pathetic that anger is? Why do you take her seriously?
However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.
Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.
The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.
Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.
Honestly, this whole debate is like listening to a massive row about stabling for extra horses in London in about 1898
From Tony Hillerman's first Navajo detective story, "The Blessing Way":
"[Joseph Begay] was a short, round-faced man with the barrel chest charateristic of a Navajo-Pueblo blood mixture from a clan which had captured Pueblo brides and with them the heavier, shorter bone structure of the Keresan Indians."
From Carl Sandburg's biography, "Abraham Lincoln", from the section describing Lincoln's part in the Black Hawk War:
"They marched up Rock River, then to Stillman's battlefield, then back along the Rock River, some men believing they were being kept busy to lessen grumbling. On May 21 came news of an Indian party near Ottawa that killed, mangled and scalped three families, 15 persons, and took away alive two girls of 17 and 15."
(Lincoln had volunteered to serve in a militia, and was elected leader of that group. The volunteers at first weren't much use to the regulars, or to the Indians who fought on the American side, but those volunteers who stuck with their service, improved.)
Woman stealing was common in many tribes, sometimes for ransom, sometimes for wives.
Assuming the crossbenchers voted against the government, Sunak would need to appoint just over 250 peers.
If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
The ECtHR could still hear a case brought against the legislation but there'd be no power to compel the govt or parliament to do anything.
Not that it matters. I don't expect it to ever reach the statute books. Even if it gets through the Commons, it'll fall in the Lords.
Helpfully, the Tories restored the king's prerogative to dissolve parliament on his own initiative, earlier this parliament.
This is why we had a a Civil War, this is why we had Brexit. Parliament is supreme, as it is the embodied will of the people
Putinists don't like the indepedent judiciary or separation of powers bit. Which are you?
I don't think "Get Rwanda Done" will work in the same way ultimately as Brexit was a huge issue where we'd had a referendum. Rwanda is just a policy which has never been in a manifesto yet let alone a referendum (so isn't a "will of the people" thing - it's like any other policy idea). Also quite a few people just don't support the policy at all, quite a few think is okay but only if Rwanda really is a safe place to send people, and quite a few see as a bit niche even if they broadly support the idea. So there is no real reason to believe Sunak CAN make the election a referendum on the matter - people don't have to agree that's what the election is all about, and probably won't.
If the democratically elected government decides to go to war, no court dares to stop it. The security of our borders is of equal importance
Is that helping the dependency ratio?
You think your position is based on rational common sense, but it sounds more like a religious belief in the benefits of immigration.
It might sound clever to rationalise why 'democracy' depends on overruling the wishes of the people, but it's storing up a lot of problems for the future.
Rwanda wasn't in the 2019 manifesto. If it was, the Lords would be pretty stymied by convention. So they're more than justified in delaying it for a year. The government's lack of preparation is not their emergency.
Maybe that's Sunak's plan- cosplay Autumn 2019, wind up the stress and go to the electorate on "Get Rwanda Done".
Heck, maybe it would work (though I don't think the plan, such as it is, can withstand that close scrutiny.)
But that's how you do big ticket stuff. Put it in a manifesto and win an election on it.
If you think you're hard enough.
They would still lose, but they might win back people like me if they made it that stark. “We want to control out borders, the blob won’t let us, vote for a free and independent Britain run by the voters, not the lawyers”
It would be low and conniving, but I could see it nudging the Tories over 30%: enough to seriously diminish Starmer’s majority
The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
When you ask who governs the country will reply with 'not you mate'.
The right wing love-in on withdrawing from bodies like the ECHR ignores that governments change and what if Labour started doing things that more right wing voters hated .
You’re also ignoring that the Tories don’t have an electoral mandate to withdraw from the ECHR . It wasn’t in the last manifesto . If the Tories are so desperate that they want to put the UK in the same company as Russia and Belarus they should call a GE.
Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
About one in five support the government, it is not the will of the people.
They have gone through multiple opposite policy sets since the last election, it is not the will of the people.
They can't get a majority in the commons for policies that are consistent with previous law, it is not the will of the people.
The cabinet are split on what to do, the Immigration minister, PM and previous Home Secretary have three differnet plans, which of these is supposedly the clear will of the people that must be followed?
If there was Commons and Lords support for a law to implement the Rwanda plan, it could be done by competent and honest politicians. The cabinet are neither honest nor competent, nor do they have a majority from the last election for this.
And that's as it should be. Parliament is ultimately accountable to the people; the courts are not accountable to anyone and should not, therefore, be able to frustrate the explicit will of parliament.
* Since 1689 in law; earlier in practice.
Paul Brand
@PaulBrandITV
BREAKING: Rwanda government threatens to pull out of the deal if it does not adhere to international law.
Hugely problematic - and potentially humiliating - for govt if its partner country decides the deal is too toxic.
Statement below 👇
I live in a town of 9,000 people. I can count 10 takeaways that do home deliveries.
- 143990+173896=317886
- Capacity of a BA Airbus-A380: 469
- 317886/469=678 ish
- So that's 678 Airbuses in nine months
- 678/9*12= 904 Airbuses per year
- 904/52= 17 Airbuses per week, or 5 Airbuses A380s every two days
So we are importing 5 Airbuses every two days full of care workers and their familiesor
- 143990+173896=317886
- 317886/9*12= 423848 people per year
So we are importing 423,848 people per year, including their dependants, to work in the health and care sectorsAnd that doesn't include the nine squillion people we are importing to do courses.
I know @rcs1000 had a good video in favor of mass immigration to solve problems. But this really is rather a lot of people.
Maybe not so much the straight fish and chips people. But burgers, pizzas etc.
Cat Neilan
@CatNeilan
MPs now believe Robert Jenrick has resigned - I'm told Simon Clarke asked Rishi Sunak directly at the 1922 meeting if he had stepped down and the PM did not deny it
I don't have any particular attachment to immigration but as I work with a load of immigrants in a company set up by immigrants and am married to the daughter of immigrants I struggle to get too upset about it either. People are people.
The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
Around 400 rioters have been convicted for crimes and sent to prison, with hundreds more sentenced but not to prison time.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, third in line to the Presidency, on the process of publishing all the security tapes:
"We're going through a methodical process of releasing them as quickly as we can. As you know, we have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don't want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DoJ and to have other, you know, concerns and problems."
The mind truly boggles.
https://twitter.com/podsaveamerica/status/1732095351681843644
The Home Secretary prefaces the "Beaches are Safe" bill with a statement that he can't say this is compatible with ECHR but the government are doing it anyway
Rwanda issue a statement saying they're out if the bill breaches the ECHR
Robert tooboringtobotherinsulting Jenrick resigns as Migration minister because the bill isn't tough enough
Pass the popcorn.
1. pay a lot, lot more for health and care via taxes to encourage domestic workers to take those jobs
2. accept a lot of the poorest won't get good health or care services
3. import a lot of people to help
4. a mix of the above
5. pretend to not import a lot of people but actually do and then get angry about it
There's a vast amount we can do to improve the quality of our basic diets, and see how that helps the health and wellbeing of the general populace. I'm convinced a lot of stuff like obesity would decline significantly.
If this bill isn't hard enough, but our supposed partners we're sending the forrin to say they won't comply, where does that leave the small-dicked hard right?
Hard (ho hum) to say that Starmer / leftie lawyers / the courts are blocking their Rwanda plan when Rwanda says it won't do it.
Shockingly enough, the UK doesn't get to dictate to foreigners what they should do...
Note that Cleverly flies to Kigali to sign a new agreement. Says "now we have new powers". The Rwandan co-signatory tells the media that there are no new powers and what is he on about.
So this is a clear theme - the UK plan is too toxic for the Rwandan government.
Surely some nice Tory backbencher can pass an amendment to the Beaches are Safe bill stating that the Rwandan government does not get to say no to the 17.4m who voted to send people to Rwanda who do these dirty foreigners think they are?