The Tories can point out Sir Keir’s multiple inconsistent statements, his u-turns on things he calls ‘principles’, his support for people he then expels, etc etc but I don’t think it will work.
No one likes the Tories, neither the party or the leader. They’ve ripped themselves to shreds and have nothing to offer; they’re not radical or Conservative, sensible or charismatic. They don’t seem to like each other so why should anyone like them?
The electorate want anyone but the Tories q.e.d.
And as quickly as possible, according to the polling. Waiting as long as possible may allow them a slim chance that something unexpected will turn up to help them, but I think on the whole the likelihood is that people will be even more fed up with them by polling day.
The amazing thing about these people who is that they were, and are, more than happy to call politicians they disagree with all kinds of childish names, poke fun at their looks, weight, spouses, illnesses, private lives & so on yet can’t stand to read any pointing out of broken pledges, dissolving ‘points of principle’, or u-turns and so on from Sir Keir, who I never attack on anything other than political terms. I said he lacked charisma on a thread I wrote here, and now it is commonplace for MSM to criticise him on those terms
They’re people who have spent years denying the link between high immigration and low pay, and that Brexit was motivated by immigration. Sir Keir is saying exactly that now… and I don’t hear any disagreement from them
(1/2)
I don’t think anyone has ever called SKS charismatic, have they? I do find him incredibly boring, frustratingly so. He never really says ANYTHING. One looks to Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting for clues on Labour’s policy programme.
My frustration will get worse when he’s in power, I’m sure. don’t think I’ve ever heard him tell a joke well (outside zingers written for him for use at PMQ). And he doesn’t strike me as having much of an intellectual or cultural hinterland — or if he does, he keeps it paranoiacally hidden, lest he upset the thick populist vote.
I would dread sitting next to him at a dinner.
I was originally a Nandy-ite. However, I have to concede Starmer’s astonishing ability in cleaning up the Labour Party, and indeed creating a front bench ready to govern. I also admire his manifest sense of public service.
All politicians U-Turn, and it’s not obvious to me why I should criticise Starmer for moderating his view as he has proceeded from Corbyn front-bencher, to Opposition Leader wannabe, to PM-in-waiting. I don’t know if I’d called it deft, but it shows frankly a stubborn will to power which I’d have thought indispensable in any PM worth having.
The curry attack is an obvious Tory beat-up, and almost transparently run as such by Paul Dacre in the Mail. I think less of people who want to make anything of it.
The other narrative you have which is that he campaigned for another Brexit referendum is merely another endorsement really, from my perspective. Polling also shows that all the Brexit idiots now support the Tories anyway so this kind of attack is not going to do much.
This is relevant because the now-retracted paper claimed to show the government's sugar tax on fizzy drinks was working. Turns out, it isn't. Not if you do the sums correctly.
Rishi Sunak diverted RAF jet to pick him up after political event and take him to Rome The Prime Minister travelled to a political event in Teesside by train yesterday - meanwhile a taxpayer-funded RAF jet was flown up to wait overnight for him, before flying him to a far-right political conference in Rome, in apparent breach of the ministerial code https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-diverted-raf-jet-31688759
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
The amazing thing about these people who is that they were, and are, more than happy to call politicians they disagree with all kinds of childish names, poke fun at their looks, weight, spouses, illnesses, private lives & so on yet can’t stand to read any pointing out of broken pledges, dissolving ‘points of principle’, or u-turns and so on from Sir Keir, who I never attack on anything other than political terms. I said he lacked charisma on a thread I wrote here, and now it is commonplace for MSM to criticise him on those terms
They’re people who have spent years denying the link between high immigration and low pay, and that Brexit was motivated by immigration. Sir Keir is saying exactly that now… and I don’t hear any disagreement from them
(1/2)
I don’t think anyone has ever called SKS charismatic, have they? I do find him incredibly boring, frustratingly so. He never really says ANYTHING. One looks to Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting for clues on Labour’s policy programme.
My frustration will get worse when he’s in power, I’m sure. don’t think I’ve ever heard him tell a joke well (outside zingers written for him for use at PMQ). And he doesn’t strike me as having much of an intellectual or cultural hinterland — or if he does, he keeps it paranoiacally hidden, lest he upset the thick populist vote.
I would dread sitting next to him at a dinner.
I was originally a Nandy-ite. However, I have to concede Starmer’s astonishing ability in cleaning up the Labour Party, and indeed creating a front bench ready to govern. I also admire his manifest sense of public service.
All politicians U-Turn, and it’s not obvious to me why I should criticise Starmer for moderating his view as he has proceeded from Corbyn front-bencher, to Opposition Leader wannabe, to PM-in-waiting. I don’t know if I’d called it deft, but it shows frankly a stubborn will to power which I’d have thought indispensable in any PM worth having.
The curry attack is an obvious Tory beat-up, and almost transparently run as such by Paul Dacre in the Mail. I think less of people who want to make anything of it.
The other narrative you have which is that he campaigned for another Brexit referendum is merely another endorsement really, from my perspective. Polling also shows that all the Brexit idiots now support the Tories anyway so this kind of attack is not going to do much.
Campaigning for a second referendum is one thing, but he had campaigned previously on accepting the result ‘as a matter of principle’. I don’t think that speaks well of him at all. He has binned all the things he pledged when running to be Labour leader too. This is all apparently fine
It’s not an attack I am that bothered about the Tories making, I don’t work for them, won’t vote for them so what do I care? But this is a political discussion board and I’m entitled to say what I think rather then be pressure into groupthink by people who indulge in doublethink
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
One of his more serious errors of judgement, and that is saying quite something.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
One of his more serious errors of judgement, and that is saying quite something.
Yet compared with recent PMs, Blair's judgement was phenomenally good.
Rishi Sunak diverted RAF jet to pick him up after political event and take him to Rome The Prime Minister travelled to a political event in Teesside by train yesterday - meanwhile a taxpayer-funded RAF jet was flown up to wait overnight for him, before flying him to a far-right political conference in Rome, in apparent breach of the ministerial code https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-diverted-raf-jet-31688759
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
One of his more serious errors of judgement, and that is saying quite something.
Yet compared with recent PMs, Blair's judgement was phenomenally good.
Well, that's hardly saying much, is it?
That's like saying somebody's more honest than an expert witness from Fujitsu.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
The reason I have to repeat these things constantly is down to the refusal of SKS fans to acknowledge he said them. Because it flies in the face if everything they, and he , have said for the last seven or eight years. I’ve been saying it all along, so of course I’m going to make hay with it
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
Your last para is highly contestable, indeed there was almost no evidence that it made “poor people poorer”. The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
The amazing thing about these people who is that they were, and are, more than happy to call politicians they disagree with all kinds of childish names, poke fun at their looks, weight, spouses, illnesses, private lives & so on yet can’t stand to read any pointing out of broken pledges, dissolving ‘points of principle’, or u-turns and so on from Sir Keir, who I never attack on anything other than political terms. I said he lacked charisma on a thread I wrote here, and now it is commonplace for MSM to criticise him on those terms
They’re people who have spent years denying the link between high immigration and low pay, and that Brexit was motivated by immigration. Sir Keir is saying exactly that now… and I don’t hear any disagreement from them
(1/2)
I don’t think anyone has ever called SKS charismatic, have they? I do find him incredibly boring, frustratingly so. He never really says ANYTHING. One looks to Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting for clues on Labour’s policy programme.
My frustration will get worse when he’s in power, I’m sure. don’t think I’ve ever heard him tell a joke well (outside zingers written for him for use at PMQ). And he doesn’t strike me as having much of an intellectual or cultural hinterland — or if he does, he keeps it paranoiacally hidden, lest he upset the thick populist vote.
I would dread sitting next to him at a dinner.
I was originally a Nandy-ite. However, I have to concede Starmer’s astonishing ability in cleaning up the Labour Party, and indeed creating a front bench ready to govern. I also admire his manifest sense of public service.
All politicians U-Turn, and it’s not obvious to me why I should criticise Starmer for moderating his view as he has proceeded from Corbyn front-bencher, to Opposition Leader wannabe, to PM-in-waiting. I don’t know if I’d called it deft, but it shows frankly a stubborn will to power which I’d have thought indispensable in any PM worth having.
The curry attack is an obvious Tory beat-up, and almost transparently run as such by Paul Dacre in the Mail. I think less of people who want to make anything of it.
The other narrative you have which is that he campaigned for another Brexit referendum is merely another endorsement really, from my perspective. Polling also shows that all the Brexit idiots now support the Tories anyway so this kind of attack is not going to do much.
Campaigning for a second referendum is one thing, but he had campaigned previously on accepting the result ‘as a matter of principle’. I don’t think that speaks well of him at all. He has binned all the things he pledged when running to be Labour leader too. This is all apparently fine
It’s not an attack I am that bothered about the Tories making, I don’t work for them, won’t vote for them so what do I care? But this is a political discussion board and I’m entitled to say what I think rather then be pressure into groupthink by people who indulge in doublethink
Yes but Sunak and the Tories have flip flopped all over the place too, most recently on HS2.
To an extent it is intrinsically part of politics. Being inflexible is reserved for the rest of us.
I don't get it, isam seems to be unhappy that Keir Starmer has accepted Brexit and wants to deliver it. Isn't that exactly what he keeps saying that the people that wine about Brexit, should do
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
Current PB Tories boast about rising wages, in a period when immigration has been at an all time high, so it cannot be much of a relationship between immigration and wages.
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
One of his more serious errors of judgement, and that is saying quite something.
Yet compared with recent PMs, Blair's judgement was phenomenally good.
Well, that's hardly saying much, is it?
That's like saying somebody's more honest than an expert witness from Fujitsu.
Iraq war - huge fail. Big enough in itself to indelibly stain Blair's premiership.
Other than that, pretty good judgement on the whole.
I don't get it, isam seems to be unhappy that Keir Starmer has accepted Brexit and wants to deliver it. Isn't that exactly what he keeps saying that the people that wine about Brexit, should do
I actually don’t even understand what his issue is. He seems to be one of the first cases of SKSDS.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
Your last para is highly contestable, indeed there was almost no evidence that it made “poor people poorer”. The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
For every 1% of the Labour market taken by immigrants, the lowest paid lose 0.6% of their wages
There’s also the Dutch study published last week that shows that , when Eastern European immigrants bring their family over it’s a massive net loss for the economy.
Rishi Sunak diverted RAF jet to pick him up after political event and take him to Rome The Prime Minister travelled to a political event in Teesside by train yesterday - meanwhile a taxpayer-funded RAF jet was flown up to wait overnight for him, before flying him to a far-right political conference in Rome, in apparent breach of the ministerial code https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-diverted-raf-jet-31688759
Disproving the saying that rules are for little people ?
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
One of his more serious errors of judgement, and that is saying quite something.
Yet compared with recent PMs, Blair's judgement was phenomenally good.
Well, that's hardly saying much, is it?
That's like saying somebody's more honest than an expert witness from Fujitsu.
Iraq war - huge fail. Big enough in itself to indelibly stain Blair's premiership.
Other than that, pretty good judgement on the whole.
Didn't expel Corbyn and the other far left dinosaurs like Skinner, Macdonnell and Abbott.
Didn't move Brown from the Treasury.
Buggered up welfare reform.
Screwed up over the rebate and the EU Constitution.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
Your last para is highly contestable, indeed there was almost no evidence that it made “poor people poorer”. The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
I don't get it, isam seems to be unhappy that Keir Starmer has accepted Brexit and wants to deliver it. Isn't that exactly what he keeps saying that the people that wine about Brexit, should do
I actually don’t even understand what his issue is. He seems to be one of the first cases of SKSDS.
I’m pointing out that, despite his image as ‘Mr Integrity’, he is prone to being completely insincere and has no real principles
I don't get it, isam seems to be unhappy that Keir Starmer has accepted Brexit and wants to deliver it. Isn't that exactly what he keeps saying that the people that wine about Brexit, should do
I actually don’t even understand what his issue is. He seems to be one of the first cases of SKSDS.
I’m pointing out that, despite his image as ‘Mr Integrity’, he is prone to being completely insincere and has no real principles
So the polar opposite of the principled and sincere Boris Johnson?
I don't get it, isam seems to be unhappy that Keir Starmer has accepted Brexit and wants to deliver it. Isn't that exactly what he keeps saying that the people that wine about Brexit, should do
I actually don’t even understand what his issue is. He seems to be one of the first cases of SKSDS.
I’m pointing out that, despite his image as ‘Mr Integrity’, he is prone to being completely insincere and has no real principles
He sounds like the ideal Tory PM candidate. If he could just ditch whatever political skills he had he'd be a perfect.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
Your last para is highly contestable, indeed there was almost no evidence that it made “poor people poorer”. The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
For every 1% of the Labour market taken by immigrants, the lowest paid lose 0.6% of their wages
I can't access the paper but... immigration reduces the Minimum Wage? That's a novel idea.
“ As for the effects on native wages, we find a pattern of effects whereby immigration depresses wages below the 20th percentile of the wage distribution but leads to slight wage increases in the upper part of the wage distribution.”
I don't get it, isam seems to be unhappy that Keir Starmer has accepted Brexit and wants to deliver it. Isn't that exactly what he keeps saying that the people that wine about Brexit, should do
I actually don’t even understand what his issue is. He seems to be one of the first cases of SKSDS.
I’m pointing out that, despite his image as ‘Mr Integrity’, he is prone to being completely insincere and has no real principles
Did you get this exercised by a politician's duplicity when Boris Johnson went to the DUP conference and said no UK PM could put a border down the Irish Sea then a few weeks later after winning the general election did exactly that?
Or when Boris Johnson wanted to give all illegal immigrants in the UK an amnesty then switched to a hardline when it came to illegal immigration?
Apart from Blair's adventures in Mesopotamia I cannot think of such an egregious lie by a UK PM than the first example?
I don't get it, isam seems to be unhappy that Keir Starmer has accepted Brexit and wants to deliver it. Isn't that exactly what he keeps saying that the people that wine about Brexit, should do
I actually don’t even understand what his issue is. He seems to be one of the first cases of SKSDS.
I’m pointing out that, despite his image as ‘Mr Integrity’, he is prone to being completely insincere and has no real principles
Did you get this exercised by a politician's duplicity when Boris Johnson went to the DUP conference and said no UK PM could put a border down the Irish Sea then a few weeks later after winning the general election did exactly that?
Or when Boris Johnson wanted to give all illegal immigrants in the UK an amnesty then switched to a hardline when it came to illegal immigration?
It’s not all about me, but I believe people did criticise him for that
77% of British Jews say they feel "less safe" living in Britain than they did before the October 7 terrorist atrocities. And 64% say they are now less trusting of the BBC
Neither are surprising. We've let British Jews down.
I don't get it, isam seems to be unhappy that Keir Starmer has accepted Brexit and wants to deliver it. Isn't that exactly what he keeps saying that the people that wine about Brexit, should do
I actually don’t even understand what his issue is. He seems to be one of the first cases of SKSDS.
I’m pointing out that, despite his image as ‘Mr Integrity’, he is prone to being completely insincere and has no real principles
Did you get this exercised by a politician's duplicity when Boris Johnson went to the DUP conference and said no UK PM could put a border down the Irish Sea then a few weeks later after winning the general election did exactly that?
Or when Boris Johnson wanted to give all illegal immigrants in the UK an amnesty then switched to a hardline when it came to illegal immigration?
It’s not all about me, but I believe people did criticise him for that
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
The reason I have to repeat these things constantly is down to the refusal of SKS fans to acknowledge he said them. Because it flies in the face if everything they, and he , have said for the last seven or eight years. I’ve been saying it all along, so of course I’m going to make hay with it
I don't believe there are too many Starmer "fans" on here. And fewer too, willing to defend him.
However your man Johnson flipped and flopped to the extent that he needed two letters to determine Leave or Remain. He has sold his soul to climb the greasy pole. One moment he is a social liberal, the next he is a right wing Euro- skeptic. He cuts his cloth to suit the audience.
You harp and complain at Starmer for being considerably less inconsistent than Johnson, to whom you award a free pass
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
Current PB Tories boast about rising wages, in a period when immigration has been at an all time high, so it cannot be much of a relationship between immigration and wages.
And also, one reason wages are "rising" nominally, but not really, is the inflation which the Tory governments have disproportionately perpetrated.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
Your last para is highly contestable, indeed there was almost no evidence that it made “poor people poorer”. The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
For every 1% of the Labour market taken by immigrants, the lowest paid lose 0.6% of their wages
There’s also the Dutch study published last week that shows that , when Eastern European immigrants bring their family over it’s a massive net loss for the economy.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
Your last para is highly contestable, indeed there was almost no evidence that it made “poor people poorer”. The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
For every 1% of the Labour market taken by immigrants, the lowest paid lose 0.6% of their wages
There’s also the Dutch study published last week that shows that , when Eastern European immigrants bring their family over it’s a massive net loss for the economy.
I can’t access the first paper, but interestingly one it’s citations references it to support the claim that “immigration can raise natives’ wages by allowing them to do more skilled jobs”, which is essentially what I said before.
I’ll read the second paper, but I personally think that even within the A10, it was really only Romania and Bulgaria which did not make a positive impact. I viewed including them as a price worth paying for the overwhelming benefits brought by the Poles especially.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
Your last para is highly contestable, indeed there was almost no evidence that it made “poor people poorer”. The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
For every 1% of the Labour market taken by immigrants, the lowest paid lose 0.6% of their wages
I can't access the paper but... immigration reduces the Minimum Wage? That's a novel idea.
“ As for the effects on native wages, we find a pattern of effects whereby immigration depresses wages below the 20th percentile of the wage distribution but leads to slight wage increases in the upper part of the wage distribution.”
I'd love to see the actual figures.
The lowest paid are on the minimum wage. Are a lot of immigrants coming in on the minimum wage? Yes Does that mean that lowest quintile have more people on the minimum wage? Yes Does that actually reduce the wages of anyone in the lowest quintile? Moot point.
I don't get it, isam seems to be unhappy that Keir Starmer has accepted Brexit and wants to deliver it. Isn't that exactly what he keeps saying that the people that wine about Brexit, should do
I actually don’t even understand what his issue is. He seems to be one of the first cases of SKSDS.
I’m pointing out that, despite his image as ‘Mr Integrity’, he is prone to being completely insincere and has no real principles
Principles can be very useful but are probably not a prerequisite to be a good leader. Some people have great integrity and are very principled, but the principles they hold are awful.
Doesn't mean Starmer will be good, but neither does a lack of personal integrity necessarily mean he will be bad. As leader he's been very cautious for the most part, which could be very different to how he will be in power.
I’ll read the second paper, but I personally think that even within the A10, it was really only Romania and Bulgaria which did not make a positive impact. I viewed including them as a price worth paying for the overwhelming benefits brought by the Poles especially.
Fair point. But Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU three years after Poland, so there was no necessary connection and no necessary trade-off.
The Tories can point out Sir Keir’s multiple inconsistent statements, his u-turns on things he calls ‘principles’, his support for people he then expels, etc etc but I don’t think it will work.
No one likes the Tories, neither the party or the leader. They’ve ripped themselves to shreds and have nothing to offer; they’re not radical or Conservative, sensible or charismatic. They don’t seem to like each other so why should anyone like them?
The electorate want anyone but the Tories q.e.d.
And as quickly as possible, according to the polling. Waiting as long as possible may allow them a slim chance that something unexpected will turn up to help them, but I think on the whole the likelihood is that people will be even more fed up with them by polling day.
It is starting to look that way. Probably why there has been some talk even of elections before May, but I feel like hope will see them cling on regardless.
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
One of his more serious errors of judgement, and that is saying quite something.
Yet compared with recent PMs, Blair's judgement was phenomenally good.
Well, that's hardly saying much, is it?
That's like saying somebody's more honest than an expert witness from Fujitsu.
Iraq war - huge fail. Big enough in itself to indelibly stain Blair's premiership.
Other than that, pretty good judgement on the whole.
Didn't expel Corbyn and the other far left dinosaurs like Skinner, Macdonnell and Abbott.
Didn't move Brown from the Treasury.
Buggered up welfare reform.
Screwed up over the rebate and the EU Constitution.
Weirdly obsessed with fox hunting.
Made Margaret Hodge minister for children.
Tuition fees.
Margaret Hodge as minister for children, is like a fuck you, to victims.
But then, our political class see child abuse as a peccadillo, rather than a serious crime.
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
One of his more serious errors of judgement, and that is saying quite something.
Yet compared with recent PMs, Blair's judgement was phenomenally good.
Well, that's hardly saying much, is it?
That's like saying somebody's more honest than an expert witness from Fujitsu.
Iraq war - huge fail. Big enough in itself to indelibly stain Blair's premiership.
Other than that, pretty good judgement on the whole.
Didn't expel Corbyn and the other far left dinosaurs like Skinner, Macdonnell and Abbott.
Didn't move Brown from the Treasury.
Buggered up welfare reform.
Screwed up over the rebate and the EU Constitution.
Weirdly obsessed with fox hunting.
Made Margaret Hodge minister for children.
Tuition fees.
Margaret Hodge as minister for children, is like a fuck you, to victims.
But then, our political class see child abuse as a peccadillo, rather than a serious crime.
Slightly different to seeing it as a good reason for advancement like the Catholic Church I suppose, but not really better.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
Your last para is highly contestable, indeed there was almost no evidence that it made “poor people poorer”. The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
For every 1% of the Labour market taken by immigrants, the lowest paid lose 0.6% of their wages
There’s also the Dutch study published last week that shows that , when Eastern European immigrants bring their family over it’s a massive net loss for the economy.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
Your last para is highly contestable, indeed there was almost no evidence that it made “poor people poorer”. The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
For every 1% of the Labour market taken by immigrants, the lowest paid lose 0.6% of their wages
There’s also the Dutch study published last week that shows that , when Eastern European immigrants bring their family over it’s a massive net loss for the economy.
I can’t access the first paper, but interestingly one it’s citations references it to support the claim that “immigration can raise natives’ wages by allowing them to do more skilled jobs”, which is essentially what I said before.
I’ll read the second paper, but I personally think that even within the A10, it was really only Romania and Bulgaria which did not make a positive impact. I viewed including them as a price worth paying for the overwhelming benefits brought by the Poles especially.
Overall the authors conclude that immigration increased wages by raising productivity to the benefit of British workers. The adverse effects were mostly on previous immigrants.
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
One of his more serious errors of judgement, and that is saying quite something.
Yet compared with recent PMs, Blair's judgement was phenomenally good.
Well, that's hardly saying much, is it?
That's like saying somebody's more honest than an expert witness from Fujitsu.
Iraq war - huge fail. Big enough in itself to indelibly stain Blair's premiership.
Other than that, pretty good judgement on the whole.
Didn't expel Corbyn and the other far left dinosaurs like Skinner, Macdonnell and Abbott.
Didn't move Brown from the Treasury.
Buggered up welfare reform.
Screwed up over the rebate and the EU Constitution.
Weirdly obsessed with fox hunting.
Made Margaret Hodge minister for children.
Tuition fees.
You make a compelling argument to stick with Team Rishi.
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
One of his more serious errors of judgement, and that is saying quite something.
Yet compared with recent PMs, Blair's judgement was phenomenally good.
Well, that's hardly saying much, is it?
That's like saying somebody's more honest than an expert witness from Fujitsu.
Iraq war - huge fail. Big enough in itself to indelibly stain Blair's premiership.
Other than that, pretty good judgement on the whole.
Didn't expel Corbyn and the other far left dinosaurs like Skinner, Macdonnell and Abbott.
Didn't move Brown from the Treasury.
Buggered up welfare reform.
Screwed up over the rebate and the EU Constitution.
Weirdly obsessed with fox hunting.
Made Margaret Hodge minister for children.
Tuition fees.
You make a compelling argument to stick with Team Rishi.
I'm in!
Blair made serious errors.
Sunak (like Truss) makes nothing but serious errors.
Evening all! Glad to see that an old friend has stopped horsing around and has regenerated.
Talking about horsing around, I get the distinct impression that the bile and opprobrium from the handful of PB Tories is because they know that the public have seen behind the curtain and they have had enough of the man pulling the levers.
It doesn't matter what they think about Starmer. About how shifty his positions may be. About that slightly smug way he goes about skewering Tory idiocy. People have stopped listening to them. The deal is done - the only question is how hard the pubishment beating.
And *that* is why isam et al are so upset. Powerless. Ignored. Inert.
I’ll read the second paper, but I personally think that even within the A10, it was really only Romania and Bulgaria which did not make a positive impact. I viewed including them as a price worth paying for the overwhelming benefits brought by the Poles especially.
Fair point. But Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU three years after Poland, so there was no necessary connection and no necessary trade-off.
Were there ever grounds though, within the EU and the single market, to restrict FOM from those two countries? I don’t think so.
Tony Blair opposed all of Thatcher's reforms and said so publicly. The Tories attempted to say he was really just lying about his centrism and it failed miserably. And Blair never kicked any left wingers out of the party for good.
One of his more serious errors of judgement, and that is saying quite something.
Yet compared with recent PMs, Blair's judgement was phenomenally good.
Well, that's hardly saying much, is it?
That's like saying somebody's more honest than an expert witness from Fujitsu.
Iraq war - huge fail. Big enough in itself to indelibly stain Blair's premiership.
Other than that, pretty good judgement on the whole.
Didn't expel Corbyn and the other far left dinosaurs like Skinner, Macdonnell and Abbott.
Didn't move Brown from the Treasury.
Buggered up welfare reform.
Screwed up over the rebate and the EU Constitution.
Weirdly obsessed with fox hunting.
Made Margaret Hodge minister for children.
Tuition fees.
You make a compelling argument to stick with Team Rishi.
I suppose someone has to, lord knows the government isn't.
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
He obviously placed “lower migration and higher wages” in a sentence asking people to vote for “a changed Labour Party” because he wanted to attract people who feel that mass immigration suppresses wages. Though if he tries to deny it and people fall for it I won’t be surprised; they don’t seem to mind it when he pulls those kind of stunts usually
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
Your last para is highly contestable, indeed there was almost no evidence that it made “poor people poorer”. The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
Nice to see the Review of Economic Studies referred to in this blog. I was a subscriber for fifty years till I retired. It's become much more empirical than in its theoretical heyday
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Evening all! Glad to see that an old friend has stopped horsing around and has regenerated.
Talking about horsing around, I get the distinct impression that the bile and opprobrium from the handful of PB Tories is because they know that the public have seen behind the curtain and they have had enough of the man pulling the levers.
It doesn't matter what they think about Starmer. About how shifty his positions may be. About that slightly smug way he goes about skewering Tory idiocy. People have stopped listening to them. The deal is done - the only question is how hard the pubishment beating.
And *that* is why isam et al are so upset. Powerless. Ignored. Inert.
The deal is done, that is true. Or at least that's the way it appears to us all right now.
The devout Tories are either thrashing about in a vain attempt to shift the dial or confidently predicting how utterly shite Labour will be once they get into office.
I can't really blame them, what else can a true-Tory believer do?
Some of the dial-shifting attempts are laughable though: Starmer = François Hollande? Well that's going to really sway votes. Captain Hindsight? Hardly new and hardly effective to date. ULEZ? Sunk without trace, predictably.
I'd say 'must try harder' but really, it's futile.
Evening all! Glad to see that an old friend has stopped horsing around and has regenerated.
Talking about horsing around, I get the distinct impression that the bile and opprobrium from the handful of PB Tories is because they know that the public have seen behind the curtain and they have had enough of the man pulling the levers.
It doesn't matter what they think about Starmer. About how shifty his positions may be. About that slightly smug way he goes about skewering Tory idiocy. People have stopped listening to them. The deal is done - the only question is how hard the pubishment beating.
And *that* is why isam et al are so upset. Powerless. Ignored. Inert.
The deal is done, that is true. Or at least that's the way it appears to us all right now.
The devout Tories are either thrashing about in a vain attempt to shift the dial or confidently predicting how utterly shite Labour will be once they get into office.
I can't really blame them, what else can a true-Tory believer do?
Some of the dial-shifting attempts are laughable though: Starmer = François Hollande? Well that's going to really sway votes. Captain Hindsight? Hardly new and hardly effective to date. ULEZ? Sunk without trace, predictably.
I'd say 'must try harder' but really, it's futile.
You forgot the proposition that SKS is somehow sleazy or sleaze-prone. Perhaps it now makes sense why currygate has such central position in the worldview of Tory paranoia.
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Welcome back! You have been missed!
You know, I’ve just been too busy to post, how it is when you are just doing so much good in the world, helping people out of, situations they are stuck in and such. Then I thought, online friends are friends too really. I wonder how they all are. Sunil with the trains, Nigel with all things Korean. TSE with more shoes than Imelda Marcos.
I am sure Labours poll dip is Gaza war related. Gaza conflict making some on left less enthusiastic to tell pollsters they will vote Labour, with the classic Opinium swingback moving the dial still more, this poll is even better for Labour than some of the other ones. Maybe the war slide has turned the corner and Labours position will start to recover.
Evening all! Glad to see that an old friend has stopped horsing around and has regenerated.
Talking about horsing around, I get the distinct impression that the bile and opprobrium from the handful of PB Tories is because they know that the public have seen behind the curtain and they have had enough of the man pulling the levers.
It doesn't matter what they think about Starmer. About how shifty his positions may be. About that slightly smug way he goes about skewering Tory idiocy. People have stopped listening to them. The deal is done - the only question is how hard the pubishment beating.
And *that* is why isam et al are so upset. Powerless. Ignored. Inert.
The deal is done, that is true. Or at least that's the way it appears to us all right now.
The devout Tories are either thrashing about in a vain attempt to shift the dial or confidently predicting how utterly shite Labour will be once they get into office.
I can't really blame them, what else can a true-Tory believer do?
Some of the dial-shifting attempts are laughable though: Starmer = François Hollande? Well that's going to really sway votes. Captain Hindsight? Hardly new and hardly effective to date. ULEZ? Sunk without trace, predictably.
I'd say 'must try harder' but really, it's futile.
You forgot the proposition that SKS is somehow sleazy or sleaze-prone. Perhaps it now makes sense why currygate has such central position in the worldview of Tory paranoia.
Constant reminders that SKS likes a beer and curry will have a devastating impact on his ratings.
I find it bemusing that people still seem to think SKS is actually crap when he's turned a 20 point deficit into a 20 point lead, thrown Corbyn out of the party and re-made the party into a centrist vehicle which it took three previous leaders to do.
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Oh there's my babe
I’m sorry, but we have never met. I really haven’t a clue what you are talking about 🤷♀️
In one sense I think the Gaza conflict might help Starmer. There’s even councillors resigning from party, so must be many members too, and most these councillors and members might already or in future vote for left candidates in internal democracy.
And in time with the recent horrible events in Israel and Gaza off the screens and getting forgot about, and both main parties can call for a cease fire, what suppressed Labours vote a bit might stop doing that.
Labour has only dropped since war, so many on left unhappy with Israel war support, otherwise it wouldn’t look like they have dropped much at all year on year.
Tories losing voters to ref is true, but it’s not idealogical, but due to looking like a weak duplicitous corrupt and incompetent government. It’s a different tale from 2019, when Boris swallowed UKIP whole once the campaign started. No Boris for one thing. We can’t add Con and Ref together, like what happened last time. Tories may chase the ref vote with policy, but whilst they look a divided house of five families, sleazy, incompetent, with Sunak’s out of touch leadership painting UK as performing brilliant, they won’t pick up many votes from anybody.
Evening all! Glad to see that an old friend has stopped horsing around and has regenerated.
Talking about horsing around, I get the distinct impression that the bile and opprobrium from the handful of PB Tories is because they know that the public have seen behind the curtain and they have had enough of the man pulling the levers.
It doesn't matter what they think about Starmer. About how shifty his positions may be. About that slightly smug way he goes about skewering Tory idiocy. People have stopped listening to them. The deal is done - the only question is how hard the pubishment beating.
And *that* is why isam et al are so upset. Powerless. Ignored. Inert.
The deal is done, that is true. Or at least that's the way it appears to us all right now.
The devout Tories are either thrashing about in a vain attempt to shift the dial or confidently predicting how utterly shite Labour will be once they get into office.
I can't really blame them, what else can a true-Tory believer do?
Some of the dial-shifting attempts are laughable though: Starmer = François Hollande? Well that's going to really sway votes. Captain Hindsight? Hardly new and hardly effective to date. ULEZ? Sunk without trace, predictably.
I'd say 'must try harder' but really, it's futile.
You forgot the proposition that SKS is somehow sleazy or sleaze-prone. Perhaps it now makes sense why currygate has such central position in the worldview of Tory paranoia.
Ah who could forget Kormagate? I mean, it utterly did for SKS didn't it - a sad end to a glittering career.
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Welcome back! You have been missed!
You know, I’ve just been too busy to post, how it is when you are just doing so much good in the world, helping people out of, situations they are stuck in and such. Then I thought, online friends are friends too really. I wonder how they all are. Sunil with the trains, Nigel with all things Korean. TSE with more shoes than Imelda Marcos.
I am sure Labours poll dip is Gaza war related. Gaza conflict making some on left less enthusiastic to tell pollsters they will vote Labour, with the classic Opinium swingback moving the dial still more, this poll is even better for Labour than some of the other ones. Maybe the war slide has turned the corner and Labours position will start to recover.
I think you're spot on, and that Labour's stance on Gaza has probably lost them 3-5% of support in recent weeks. Anecdotally, quite a lot of younger (in particular, but not just) lefties are disenchanted with Starmer's seemingly unequivocal support for Israel's campaign in Gaza. 100% of my own kids, for example.
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Welcome back! You have been missed!
You know, I’ve just been too busy to post, how it is when you are just doing so much good in the world, helping people out of, situations they are stuck in and such. Then I thought, online friends are friends too really. I wonder how they all are. Sunil with the trains, Nigel with all things Korean. TSE with more shoes than Imelda Marcos.
I am sure Labours poll dip is Gaza war related. Gaza conflict making some on left less enthusiastic to tell pollsters they will vote Labour, with the classic Opinium swingback moving the dial still more, this poll is even better for Labour than some of the other ones. Maybe the war slide has turned the corner and Labours position will start to recover.
I think you're spot on, and that Labour's stance on Gaza has probably lost them 3-5% of support in recent weeks. Anecdotally, quite a lot of younger (in particular, but not just) lefties are disenchanted with Starmer's seemingly unequivocal support for Israel's campaign in Gaza. 100% of my own kids, for example.
I am sure that is right.
Quite why Palestine/Israel is such a touchstone issue when we as a nation have zero influence on the conflict is bizarre, and not entirely due to anti-semitism.
Evening all! Glad to see that an old friend has stopped horsing around and has regenerated.
Talking about horsing around, I get the distinct impression that the bile and opprobrium from the handful of PB Tories is because they know that the public have seen behind the curtain and they have had enough of the man pulling the levers.
It doesn't matter what they think about Starmer. About how shifty his positions may be. About that slightly smug way he goes about skewering Tory idiocy. People have stopped listening to them. The deal is done - the only question is how hard the pubishment beating.
And *that* is why isam et al are so upset. Powerless. Ignored. Inert.
The deal is done, that is true. Or at least that's the way it appears to us all right now.
The devout Tories are either thrashing about in a vain attempt to shift the dial or confidently predicting how utterly shite Labour will be once they get into office.
I can't really blame them, what else can a true-Tory believer do?
Some of the dial-shifting attempts are laughable though: Starmer = François Hollande? Well that's going to really sway votes. Captain Hindsight? Hardly new and hardly effective to date. ULEZ? Sunk without trace, predictably.
I'd say 'must try harder' but really, it's futile.
You forgot the proposition that SKS is somehow sleazy or sleaze-prone. Perhaps it now makes sense why currygate has such central position in the worldview of Tory paranoia.
Ah who could forget Kormagate? I mean, it utterly did for SKS didn't it - a sad end to a glittering career.
(Currygate is surely John Major's affair)
It made for great threads on PB, as the North Wales correspondent argued over and over about whether the inclusion of naan bread might be a resigning matter.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 47m Trump promises the federal government will indemnify all police and law enforcement officials for "strong actions against crime," and says this is "a big thing and brand new and so important." Which it is, if you really want to put a nation on the road to authoritarianism.
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Welcome back! You have been missed!
You know, I’ve just been too busy to post, how it is when you are just doing so much good in the world, helping people out of, situations they are stuck in and such. Then I thought, online friends are friends too really. I wonder how they all are. Sunil with the trains, Nigel with all things Korean. TSE with more shoes than Imelda Marcos.
I am sure Labours poll dip is Gaza war related. Gaza conflict making some on left less enthusiastic to tell pollsters they will vote Labour, with the classic Opinium swingback moving the dial still more, this poll is even better for Labour than some of the other ones. Maybe the war slide has turned the corner and Labours position will start to recover.
I think you're right about Gaza. Worth listening to Professor Norman Finklestein with some interesting facts and statistics
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Welcome back! You have been missed!
You know, I’ve just been too busy to post, how it is when you are just doing so much good in the world, helping people out of, situations they are stuck in and such. Then I thought, online friends are friends too really. I wonder how they all are. Sunil with the trains, Nigel with all things Korean. TSE with more shoes than Imelda Marcos.
I am sure Labours poll dip is Gaza war related. Gaza conflict making some on left less enthusiastic to tell pollsters they will vote Labour, with the classic Opinium swingback moving the dial still more, this poll is even better for Labour than some of the other ones. Maybe the war slide has turned the corner and Labours position will start to recover.
I think you're spot on, and that Labour's stance on Gaza has probably lost them 3-5% of support in recent weeks. Anecdotally, quite a lot of younger (in particular, but not just) lefties are disenchanted with Starmer's seemingly unequivocal support for Israel's campaign in Gaza. 100% of my own kids, for example.
I am sure that is right.
Quite why Palestine/Israel is such a touchstone issue when we as a nation have zero influence on the conflict is bizarre, and not entirely due to anti-semitism.
I’m sure it’s true, as hasn’t Biden’s polling been hit in the identical time period to Labours? That would suggest it’s not entirely UK politics related. And quite why so many choose to ignore the horrendous terrorist racist driven attack on Isreal and only have anger for the Israeli response is baffling to me too.
Is it true the three Israeli hostages were actually free from captors, shirtless and walking under a white flag when the IDF killed them? And was it this incident that has caused Cameron and the UK government to step away from their level of support to the Israeli government?
I think the Tory ratings have dropped from their support for the war too. Maybe specific polling and focus groups has made them worry about this.
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Welcome back! You have been missed!
You know, I’ve just been too busy to post, how it is when you are just doing so much good in the world, helping people out of, situations they are stuck in and such. Then I thought, online friends are friends too really. I wonder how they all are. Sunil with the trains, Nigel with all things Korean. TSE with more shoes than Imelda Marcos.
I am sure Labours poll dip is Gaza war related. Gaza conflict making some on left less enthusiastic to tell pollsters they will vote Labour, with the classic Opinium swingback moving the dial still more, this poll is even better for Labour than some of the other ones. Maybe the war slide has turned the corner and Labours position will start to recover.
I think you're spot on, and that Labour's stance on Gaza has probably lost them 3-5% of support in recent weeks. Anecdotally, quite a lot of younger (in particular, but not just) lefties are disenchanted with Starmer's seemingly unequivocal support for Israel's campaign in Gaza. 100% of my own kids, for example.
I am sure that is right.
Quite why Palestine/Israel is such a touchstone issue when we as a nation have zero influence on the conflict is bizarre, and not entirely due to anti-semitism.
In the examples I know it's nothing to do with anti-semitism. Everybody was outraged by the Hamas attacks. But the huge devastation of Gaza and the loss of civilian lives is seen as a disproportionate response.
As to why it's a touchstone issue - I'm not sure it is of itself, but what makes it so is that UK politicians talk about it and give their views on it in a way which they don't with most other conflicts. So if the politicians can have a view on it, why can't the people?
Labour lead sits at 13 points. • Labour 40% (-3) • Conservatives 27% (+1) • Lib Dems 11% (n/c) • Reform 9% (n/c) • Greens 7% (+1) • SNP 3% (n/c)
I have rearranged the poll in descending order. Quite why Reform, in 4th place, were listed last, and the SNP, in last place, were listed 4th, I have absolutely no idea!
That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Welcome back! You have been missed!
You know, I’ve just been too busy to post, how it is when you are just doing so much good in the world, helping people out of, situations they are stuck in and such. Then I thought, online friends are friends too really. I wonder how they all are. Sunil with the trains, Nigel with all things Korean. TSE with more shoes than Imelda Marcos.
I am sure Labours poll dip is Gaza war related. Gaza conflict making some on left less enthusiastic to tell pollsters they will vote Labour, with the classic Opinium swingback moving the dial still more, this poll is even better for Labour than some of the other ones. Maybe the war slide has turned the corner and Labours position will start to recover.
I think you're spot on, and that Labour's stance on Gaza has probably lost them 3-5% of support in recent weeks. Anecdotally, quite a lot of younger (in particular, but not just) lefties are disenchanted with Starmer's seemingly unequivocal support for Israel's campaign in Gaza. 100% of my own kids, for example.
I am sure that is right.
Quite why Palestine/Israel is such a touchstone issue when we as a nation have zero influence on the conflict is bizarre, and not entirely due to anti-semitism.
It's partly due to media. Everyone has a Middle-East Correspondent so there's plenty of copy to keep them busy. In Borneo or New Guinea tribes still eat each other for breakfast, lunch and dinner but the BBC hasn't sent a film crew there for our delectation ... or maybe they haven't come back yet. In neither case can we do much about it.
Comments
“Please Sir, he’s proving me wrong”
I don’t think anyone has ever called SKS charismatic, have they? I do find him incredibly boring, frustratingly so. He never really says ANYTHING. One looks to Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting for clues on Labour’s policy programme.
My frustration will get worse when he’s in power, I’m sure. don’t think I’ve ever heard him tell a joke well (outside zingers written for him for use at PMQ). And he doesn’t strike me as having much of an intellectual or cultural hinterland — or if he does, he keeps it paranoiacally hidden, lest he upset the thick populist vote.
I would dread sitting next to him at a dinner.
I was originally a Nandy-ite. However, I have to concede Starmer’s astonishing ability in cleaning up the Labour Party, and indeed creating a front bench ready to govern. I also admire his manifest sense of public service.
All politicians U-Turn, and it’s not obvious to me why I should criticise Starmer for moderating his view as he has proceeded from Corbyn front-bencher, to Opposition Leader wannabe, to PM-in-waiting. I don’t know if I’d called it deft, but it shows frankly a stubborn will to power which I’d have thought indispensable in any PM worth having.
The curry attack is an obvious Tory beat-up, and almost transparently run as such by Paul Dacre in the Mail. I think less of people who want to make anything of it.
The other narrative you have which is that he campaigned for another Brexit referendum is merely another endorsement really, from my perspective.
Polling also shows that all the Brexit idiots now support the Tories anyway so this kind of attack is not going to do much.
Sunak - Captain Mainwaring
Starmer - Sergeant Wilson
Davey - Private Godfrey
Farage - Private Walker
No strong female characters in Dad's Army, sadly - it's of its time there.
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/12/10/bmj-retracts-article-about-effect-of-uk-sugar-tax-after-authors-find-error/
This is relevant because the now-retracted paper claimed to show the government's sugar tax on fizzy drinks was working. Turns out, it isn't. Not if you do the sums correctly.
It’s not an attack I am that bothered about the Tories making, I don’t work for them, won’t vote for them so what do I care? But this is a political discussion board and I’m entitled to say what I think rather then be pressure into groupthink by people who indulge in doublethink
The immigration and wages mention, which you now excitedly pepper every second post with, is interesting. His speech was less direct in making the link than you pretend, though, and leaves enough ambiguity for Starmer to deny he made any such connection.
My own view is that EU migration was an astonishing boon for the UK economy until 2016. I was slightly troubled by the volume and speed of it, and my main issue with both governments is that they made no provision for infrastructure, and no attempts to support communities experiencing rapid demographic change.
I don’t believe migration suppressed wages overall, but I am happy to accept that for certain sub-categories of immigrant, and for certain sectors in particular, the economics were not as positive. Nevertheless, the constant reference to car washes and twelve-to-a-house Romanians by Tory foamers on here did not adequately characterise the overall migration experience which, as, I say, was overwhelmingly positive. Britain got a great deal from its mostly young, and mostly talented EU migrants.
It is not obvious to me though that this follows for today’s even higher volume of immigrants. I am troubled by the reliance of the NHS and the care sector as a whole, on cheap foreign labour, and I can see that in the state sector in particular, foreign immigration *is* used essentially to suppress wages.
I’m waiting to see where Starmer goes on this.
That's like saying somebody's more honest than an expert witness from Fujitsu.
Yes there were studies that showed that immigration increased wealth overall, the problem was it made rich people richer, and poor people poorer, less secure in their jobs and more likely to have to fight for reduced public services.
The reason I have to repeat these things constantly is down to the refusal of SKS fans to acknowledge he said them. Because it flies in the face if everything they, and he , have said for the last seven or eight years. I’ve been saying it all along, so of course I’m going to make hay with it
The data suggested that, in aggregate, British workers moved up the ladder. I accept that returns favoured the wealthy, as all economic growth does in Britain which is one of the more unequal economies.
To an extent it is intrinsically part of politics. Being inflexible is reserved for the rest of us.
Other than that, pretty good judgement on the whole.
He seems to be one of the first cases of SKSDS.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v80y2013i1p145-173.html
For every 1% of the Labour market taken by immigrants, the lowest paid lose 0.6% of their
wages
There’s also the Dutch study published last week that shows that , when Eastern European immigrants bring their family over it’s a massive net loss for the economy.
https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
Didn't move Brown from the Treasury.
Buggered up welfare reform.
Screwed up over the rebate and the EU Constitution.
Weirdly obsessed with fox hunting.
Made Margaret Hodge minister for children.
Tuition fees.
@OpiniumResearch
🚨 New polling with
@ObserverUK
Labour lead sits at 13 points.
• Labour 40% (-3)
• Conservatives 27% (+1)
• Lib Dems 11% (n/c)
• SNP 3% (n/c)
• Greens 7% (+1)
• Reform 9% (n/c)
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1736114016446038166?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
Or when Boris Johnson wanted to give all illegal immigrants in the UK an amnesty then switched to a hardline when it came to illegal immigration?
Apart from Blair's adventures in Mesopotamia I cannot think of such an egregious lie by a UK PM than the first example?
Any way, Broken, sleazy Labour on the slide!
@GoodwinMJ
77% of British Jews say they feel "less safe" living in Britain than they did before the October 7 terrorist atrocities. And 64% say they are now less trusting of the BBC
Neither are surprising. We've let British Jews down.
Source: Survation"
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1735388498805272838
However your man Johnson flipped and flopped to the extent that he needed two letters to determine Leave or Remain. He has sold his soul to climb the greasy pole. One moment he is a social liberal, the next he is a right wing Euro- skeptic. He cuts his cloth to suit the audience.
You harp and complain at Starmer for being considerably less inconsistent than Johnson, to whom you award a free pass
Hasta La vista babies
I’ll read the second paper, but I personally think that even within the A10, it was really only Romania and Bulgaria which did not make a positive impact. I viewed including them as a price worth paying for the overwhelming benefits brought by the Poles especially.
https://twitter.com/M10/status/1736108908882591835
The lowest paid are on the minimum wage.
Are a lot of immigrants coming in on the minimum wage? Yes
Does that mean that lowest quintile have more people on the minimum wage? Yes
Does that actually reduce the wages of anyone in the lowest quintile? Moot point.
Olly Alexander has just announced on Strictly that he's the UK's entry.
Doesn't mean Starmer will be good, but neither does a lack of personal integrity necessarily mean he will be bad. As leader he's been very cautious for the most part, which could be very different to how he will be in power.
Con/Ref 36%
Add in MoE and swingback and we have a Tory lead!
But then, our political class see child abuse as a peccadillo, rather than a serious crime.
(Electoral Calculus, new boundaries)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/DustmannGlitzFrattini2008.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjK-Nup55SDAxVqWEEAHag8CuAQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1WW5TRneoXgkFlP9fsbrmm
Overall the authors conclude that immigration increased wages by raising productivity to the benefit of British workers. The adverse effects were mostly on previous immigrants.
It isn't the slam dunk that he seems to think.
I'm in!
Sunak (like Truss) makes nothing but serious errors.
Talking about horsing around, I get the distinct impression that the bile and opprobrium from the handful of PB Tories is because they know that the public have seen behind the curtain and they have had enough of the man pulling the levers.
It doesn't matter what they think about Starmer. About how shifty his positions may be. About that slightly smug way he goes about skewering Tory idiocy. People have stopped listening to them. The deal is done - the only question is how hard the pubishment beating.
And *that* is why isam et al are so upset. Powerless. Ignored. Inert.
Let's see whether Opinium and the other polls narrow as the election approaches.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/Review of Economic Studies-2013-Dustmann-145-73.pdf
Nice to see the Review of Economic Studies referred to in this blog. I was a subscriber for fifty years till I retired. It's become much more empirical than in its theoretical heyday
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Outrageous that people would see immorality in the government / Tory party and call it immoral. Who ARE these people?
The devout Tories are either thrashing about in a vain attempt to shift the dial or confidently predicting how utterly shite Labour will be once they get into office.
I can't really blame them, what else can a true-Tory believer do?
Some of the dial-shifting attempts are laughable though: Starmer = François Hollande? Well that's going to really sway votes. Captain Hindsight? Hardly new and hardly effective to date. ULEZ? Sunk without trace, predictably.
I'd say 'must try harder' but really, it's futile.
I am sure Labours poll dip is Gaza war related. Gaza conflict making some on left less enthusiastic to tell pollsters they will vote Labour, with the classic Opinium swingback moving the dial still more, this poll is even better for Labour than some of the other ones. Maybe the war slide has turned the corner and Labours position will start to recover.
In one sense I think the Gaza conflict might help Starmer. There’s even councillors resigning from party, so must be many members too, and most these councillors and members might already or in future vote for left candidates in internal democracy.
And in time with the recent horrible events in Israel and Gaza off the screens and getting forgot about, and both main parties can call for a cease fire, what suppressed Labours vote a bit might stop doing that.
Labour has only dropped since war, so many on left unhappy with Israel war support, otherwise it wouldn’t look like they have dropped much at all year on year.
Tories losing voters to ref is true, but it’s not idealogical, but due to looking like a weak duplicitous corrupt and incompetent government. It’s a different tale from 2019, when Boris swallowed UKIP whole once the campaign started. No Boris for one thing. We can’t add Con and Ref together, like what happened last time. Tories may chase the ref vote with policy, but whilst they look a divided house of five families, sleazy, incompetent, with Sunak’s out of touch leadership painting UK as performing brilliant, they won’t pick up many votes from anybody.
(Currygate is surely John Major's affair)
Quite why Palestine/Israel is such a touchstone issue when we as a nation have zero influence on the conflict is bizarre, and not entirely due to anti-semitism.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
47m
Trump promises the federal government will indemnify all police and law enforcement officials for "strong actions against crime," and says this is "a big thing and brand new and so important." Which it is, if you really want to put a nation on the road to authoritarianism.
https://twitter.com/BillKristol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7m334hVOUY
This shows the very concrete loss of sovereignty imposed by Brexit.
Is it true the three Israeli hostages were actually free from captors, shirtless and walking under a white flag when the IDF killed them? And was it this incident that has caused Cameron and the UK government to step away from their level of support to the Israeli government?
I think the Tory ratings have dropped from their support for the war too. Maybe specific polling and focus groups has made them worry about this.
As to why it's a touchstone issue - I'm not sure it is of itself, but what makes it so is that UK politicians talk about it and give their views on it in a way which they don't with most other conflicts. So if the politicians can have a view on it, why can't the people?
@OpiniumResearch
🚨 New polling with
@ObserverUK
Labour lead sits at 13 points.
• Labour 40% (-3)
• Conservatives 27% (+1)
• Lib Dems 11% (n/c)
• Reform 9% (n/c)
• Greens 7% (+1)
• SNP 3% (n/c)
I have rearranged the poll in descending order.
Quite why Reform, in 4th place, were listed last, and the SNP, in last place, were listed 4th, I have absolutely no idea!