Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
When was the most recent time that a LOTO became PM for the first time by winning a GE against a younger PM?
AFAICT only three times in the past 100 years has a LOTO won a GE against a younger PM:
1929 MacDonald beat Baldwin (10 months his junior) 1951 Churchill beat Attlee (8 years his junior) 1974 Wilson beat Heath (4 months his junior)
- and all of these LOTOs had been PM before.
Starmer is 18 years older than Sunak and 13 years older than Mordaunt.
Two of those elections were hung Parliaments and the third saw the party with most seats winning fewer votes than the ‘losing’ party.
In fact in every case the party with most seats got fewer votes than another party.
When was the last time a non-ex-PM LOTO beat an age gap in a GE?
We define "beat an age gap" as "become PM as a result of winning most seats, while being older than the PM he or she is running against".
It hasn't happened since the introduction of universal adult suffrage. Has it ever happened at all?
Starmer is 18y older than Sunak and 13y older than Mordaunt.
Smartarses beware: I know about XKCD cartoon 1122 from 2012 and vaguely recall there may have been a similar one in 2016.
Does 1906 count? If not you are probably looking at 1852 and 1830. Before that 1808.
1906 is an edge case, but I think we have to exclude it because Campbell-Bannerman was the PM who called the election even if he'd only just been appointed. 1852? Derby was 7y younger than Russell. 1830? Wellington won most seats even if Grey took over. What happened in 1808?
Portland took power from Grenville.
Pretty sure Derby was younger than Aberdeen, and Derby was the incumbent PM.
OK, but I'm looking for a case where an older non-ex-PM LOTO took over as PM from a sitting PM he beat in a GE. Not sure it's ever happened before.
But they say Charismatic Superman Keir will beat a gap of more than 10 years and win a landslide. He must be eating 4 Weetabix for breakfast every day or something.
In 1923 MacDonald did take over from Baldwin for the first time after a GE despite being older, but doesn't meet the other half of your criteria because Labour wasn't the largest party.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
We don't build enough houses because it's not the private house builder's job to solve the housing crisis. They just build enough houses that they can sell at prices they want to sell at. It's capitalism, innit? The government should be building affordable semis, terraces, flats and apartments to rent. Nationalise affordable housing and employ trades, have apprenticeships and construction capability owned by the government that delivers affordable, quality housing for the population. It might even help to bring house prices down. Don't contract it out. It'll just go way over budget and under deliver. It'll kill private landlords, but tough. Some things just need to be nationalised.
I don't know about the practicality but I share the sentiment. A shift in the perception of residential property from 'personal wealth creating asset' and 'getting on the ladder' to 'an affordable place to live' would be a very positive development. The warped way we view 'houses' is imo one of the biggest root causes of the problem.
It's not practical. No government would be bold enough for a start. But it would improve people's lives immeasurably. I know capitalism is the only game in town, but events like Thames Water prove time and again that our current form of capitalism just ain't working for the little guy. Some things just need to be nationalised....
Many boomers got a massive windfall from housing despite only working pretty average jobs. They interpret this windfall as due to their "hard work"
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
We don't build enough houses because it's not the private house builder's job to solve the housing crisis. They just build enough houses that they can sell at prices they want to sell at. It's capitalism, innit? The government should be building affordable semis, terraces, flats and apartments to rent. Nationalise affordable housing and employ trades, have apprenticeships and construction capability owned by the government that delivers affordable, quality housing for the population. It might even help to bring house prices down. Don't contract it out. It'll just go way over budget and under deliver. It'll kill private landlords, but tough. Some things just need to be nationalised.
I don't know about the practicality but I share the sentiment. A shift in the perception of residential property from 'personal wealth creating asset' and 'getting on the ladder' to 'an affordable place to live' would be a very positive development. The warped way we view 'houses' is imo one of the biggest root causes of the problem.
It's not practical. No government would be bold enough for a start. But it would improve people's lives immeasurably. I know capitalism is the only game in town, but events like Thames Water prove time and again that our current form of capitalism just ain't working for the little guy. Some things just need to be nationalised....
Many boomers got a massive windfall from housing despite only working pretty average jobs. They interpret this windfall as due to their "hard work"
It’s like people who do well in a rising stock market. It’s always their hard work and expertise and not just right place right time
The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.
And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.
I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.
And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.
That's really quite disturbing.
It is. Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.
But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.
OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.
Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.
Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
This is really a matter for government.
If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.
That is completely unacceptable.
Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
Regulatory capture. OFWAT, like most regulators, seem more interested in propping up the businesses they are supposed to regulate rather than looking out for the consumer. It is a revolving door between these businesses and regulators too. It all stink.
Shareholders and bondholder take a risk. Let them lose the lot and a new company comes out of it. They have milked it in the good days, let them take the loss. Screw them,
The current owners didn't milk the company in the good days - which they are loudly proclaiming at the moment. But that doesn't mean we should bail them out.
Okay, but somebody did milk it. The current owners will have to take the hit. We should not bail them out. We should let the business fail and a new business emerge.
The problem is that the system of government is now selling the following line - "Pension funds, foreign and domestic are heavily invested in Thames Water. Therefore it is Too Big To Fail".
No, it isn't. The company has the liquidity to continue trading for a good year, in any event.
It's likely insolvent going forward, as it's so loaded with debt that it's not a viable business. The owners are effectively asking for their losses to be carried by their customers. As most of them are overseas, and bailout is just foreign aid to wealthy countries. And customers don't even get to vote for it.
This an argument which the investors in the business must not be allowed to win. It's obnoxious on its face; it would also set an appalling precedent.
That's my point. The moment anyone says something is Too Big To Fail, that thing needs to fail.
EDIT: This is something that will be on Starmer's plate, early on.
Bingo.
Nothing, literally nothing, should ever be considered too big to fail.
Bailing out the Banks was a horrendous and unnecessary mistake. They should have been allowed to fail while protecting and continuing operations which can happen even for failed businesses.
Even Lehman Bros still had continuing operations as of a couple of years ago. The idea that failure equals the suspension of all operations is a complete and utter myth.
True though the Bush administration refusal to bail out Lehmans still led to the biggest recession for decades when it went bankrupt. That would have been magnified to Great Depression unemployment levels had other banks gone under too
Sure we would have had a massive depression. But many of those who would suffer in that depression like the bankers would learn a goid hard lesson. And now housing costs would be lower the young would be richer and the economy much more dynamic. Which is preferable.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
So in short the situation at the moment is that schools are all about to crumble because of crap concrete, while the rivers are all overflowing with shite, and hardly anyone under 50 knows how to do joined-up handwriting.
But it doesn't matter because everyone over about the age of five carries a little computer that's connected to a big network and shows them lots of adverts.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Thank you for that YouGov polling - interesting! I note YouGov track what people say are the negative impacts of immigration, but several of these are mythical. We’ve discussed before that crime is, if anything, lower in immigrant groups. Recent immigrants are less likely to receive benefits ( https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk ). So, why are people saying things that aren’t true?
It could be because they have some racist views. It could be because politicians/commentators tell them that immigrants are claiming benefits and causing crime. Either way, those items polling high would appear to support my thesis.
Even when we get to items like ‘Demand for public services’, where immigration is higher, where therefore demand for public services is higher, like in London, there are fewer expressing anti-immigration views. So even these items may reflect respondents giving post hoc explanations for their views.
Morning all. Loathe as I am to put weight on a single poll, YouGov is quite interesting on a few levels. Labour at 40% has been seen recently with More in Common once this year and Deltapoll in December. On its own it means nothing but if we see Labour dip into the 30s would that set collies a wobbling in Starmer towers like sub 20 was a 'monent' for the Tories last week? (I.e. we see how led by polls the current Lab leadership is) Reform on 16% is a bit ooooof! YouGov of course is the most Reformy pollster lately but ignoring UNS (useless with this big a swing BXP to Reform) you'd need to start looking seriously at where they might pick up seat(s) (not that I think personally they get 16% in reality). And despite the Tory mini recovery from the teen doldrums still only 5% from crossover, which would be seismic.
Edit - and the regionals (which are weighted with yougov? If not, ignore) have Reform matching Tories in the North and Midlands and a tightish race between all 4 including LD in the South, Labour dominating London
So, whilst just one poll and acknowledging that limitation, it does sit right on a number of thresholds, making it in itself an interesting little data puddle
Quite clearly Thames Water needs to go pop with the equity holders wiped out. It happens all the time, in fact the EU not approving AMZN's takeover of IRBT has pretty much wiped out all their value (Offer blocked at $60, now $8-$9) and their investors took a hit (I exited at $30 or so if you all must know). So I don't see why the Ontario Teacher's pension fund shouldn't take a hit with Thames Water.
Now bills might have to rise for customers under newco or nationalisation but that's a seperate issue.
Whilst I agree in principle the fact is that many of our pension funds have been treating bonds from the likes of Thames as if they were slightly higher paying gilts. When gilt rates were absurdly low most pensions, including the one I am a trustee of, moved to BBB bonds to get a return closer to inflation. The risk was assessed as extremely low by the same geniuses who used to sign off on mortgage packages before 2008.
A major failure of such a bond would have undesirable consequences and, once again, might make it harder for companies to raise new capital for investment. I don't think we have any choice here but it is not a free hit by any means.
risks of BBB bonds are generally low. Low does not mean zero.
We don't build enough houses because it's not the private house builder's job to solve the housing crisis. They just build enough houses that they can sell at prices they want to sell at. It's capitalism, innit? The government should be building affordable semis, terraces, flats and apartments to rent. Nationalise affordable housing and employ trades, have apprenticeships and construction capability owned by the government that delivers affordable, quality housing for the population. It might even help to bring house prices down. Don't contract it out. It'll just go way over budget and under deliver. It'll kill private landlords, but tough. Some things just need to be nationalised.
Different in Scotland. Obviously the laws of nature and economics change at Lamberton Toll and Carter Bar.
Scotland's population has barely changed in the past quarter of a century.
England's has changed significantly.
Why that is the case, is a whole different discussion.
Completely wrong.
Since 2001, Scotland's population has increased by 8%. The number of dwellings has increased by 15%.
Since 2005 house prices have increased by 103% - compared with a measly 91% in England.
It's not a "whole different discussion". It's even worse!
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
That's nonsense. The main unpopularity has to do with extremist culture being brought to Europe from the Middle East or rural Pakistan. There is nothing racist about disliking misogynistic, anti-democratic views and not wanting more of it in our country.
Concerns about immigration were high before Brexit when most of the immigration was from Poland and Romania. Was its unpopularity then due to the “extremist culture” of Poland and Romania?
Today, very little immigration is from the Middle East. There is more from Pakistan, although India, Nigeria and China are above Pakistan in the recent numbers. If we look more broadly at the immigrant population in the UK, whenever they arrived, the biggest countries of origin are: Poland, India, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Portugal and Spain. And then Pakistan. In terms of the Middle East, you have to go down to the country in 30th, Türkiye, and then Iran is 35th.
So, with very little immigration from the Middle East, it seems unlikely that your explanation that people are concerned with the “extremist culture” of immigrants from the Middle East is correct. There is more immigration from Pakistan (I don’t know how we’d differentiate between rural and urban Pakistan), but the numbers are still comparatively low compared to Eastern Europe, Ireland, Western Europe etc. Numbers from Pakistan have increased since Brexit, but concerns about immigration are lower since Brexit.
I think you're probably right. It's uncomfortable to think that racism/xenophobia drives much of the concern about immigration therefore there's an effort to explain it in more rational ways - such as 'if we built the infrastructure people would be fine with it'. Of course this is not to say that isn't a valid point in itself.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Thank you for that YouGov polling - interesting! I note YouGov track what people say are the negative impacts of immigration, but several of these are mythical. We’ve discussed before that crime is, if anything, lower in immigrant groups. Recent immigrants are less likely to receive benefits ( https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk ). So, why are people saying things that aren’t true?
It could be because they have some racist views. It could be because politicians/commentators tell them that immigrants are claiming benefits and causing crime. Either way, those items polling high would appear to support my thesis.
Even when we get to items like ‘Demand for public services’, where immigration is higher, where therefore demand for public services is higher, like in London, there are fewer expressing anti-immigration views. So even these items may reflect respondents giving post hoc explanations for their views.
40% of Londoners were born outside the UK so of course it will have different views on migration. Sure Tory/Refuk rhetoric and scapegoating are part of it but when people say public services and housing are the main reasons, and we have crises in both, why not take them at face value?
We don't build enough houses because it's not the private house builder's job to solve the housing crisis. They just build enough houses that they can sell at prices they want to sell at. It's capitalism, innit? The government should be building affordable semis, terraces, flats and apartments to rent. Nationalise affordable housing and employ trades, have apprenticeships and construction capability owned by the government that delivers affordable, quality housing for the population. It might even help to bring house prices down. Don't contract it out. It'll just go way over budget and under deliver. It'll kill private landlords, but tough. Some things just need to be nationalised.
There's no need for nationalisation, just competition.
Our planning system hands power to large developers who can play the system, while protecting them from competition. Its the worst of all worlds.
Solve the problem at source, eliminate the planning system, eliminate "consent" and move to zoning whereby if land is zoned for construction it can be developed by their owners, no ifs, buts or equivocations - no planning necessary.
Also resolve the tax system by replacing our current taxes with a land value tax that taxes land the same whether its developed or undeveloped. Anyone who "land banks" is then paying the full whack of tax up front immediately from day one, not years down the line.
1. Those large developers have of course emerged from the free market.
2. The population at large won't stand for free-for-all planning. You cannot implement a major policy change that not only doesn't have broad support, has vehement and widespread opposition. Get real for once.
There's no free market if everything runs on planning permission.
This together with moneylenders being allowed to lend so much, combined with many punters wanting to get the biggest possible loans, is why residential property prices are sky high.
Get rid of planning permission and prices would fall by about 95%. There are places where a house on a tiny plot costs say £1m but if you were allowed you could build a house of similar or better quality for £50K.
Insurers also do very nicely out of high house prices, which are actually high land prices, which are built on thin air.
It's as Marx said: M → M'.
My rebuild cost was actually slightly higher than the property value last time I checked.
Gosh. Do you have a luxury mansion built in the middle of nowhere?
Economy in recession, smaller than when Richi took over.
Hold on, lads, it's working...
@lara_spirit Labour lead at 19 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times
CON 21 (+2) LAB 40 (-4) LIB DEM 10 (+1) REF UK 16 (+1) GRN 8 (=)
Fieldwork 26 - 27 March
Still don't think REFORM will poll anything like 16% on the day.
Not entirely sure that 1 in 10 of us will vote Lib Dem either. They are nowhere at the moment with apparently nothing to say. My guess is that roughly half that Green vote will go to Labour too. Which is probably just as well given their enthusiasm levels.
Certainly the Lib Dems are not being much reported at the national level. On the other hand they are "winning here" in a lot of local contests, and the effort going into target seats is pretty dramatic. I think they will be reexamined after the local results come in and the media looks for another angle on the inevitable Tory defeat story, That being said, the Lib Dems do need to be a bit more ambitious in what is likely to be an epochal general election; constitutional issues are likely to come to the fore soon, and the Lib Dems have plenty to say on that subject.
The Tories seem very unhappy with pesky peers. Perhaps they’d like to consider the LibDems’ strong support for Lords reform.
A little irony is that, had a group of Tory MPs (to a large extent the same headbangers who are most upset with the Lords now) not blocked Clegg's House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012, in breach of the Coalition Agreement, I believe the first Lords elections would have taken place at the same time as the 2019 General Election. Although that would've been on the list system, it was clearly a good election for the Tories and, with transitional members, ministerial members, and a small number of appointed, they'd actually be in better shape to get things like Rwanda passed than they are today.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
We don't build enough houses because it's not the private house builder's job to solve the housing crisis. They just build enough houses that they can sell at prices they want to sell at. It's capitalism, innit? The government should be building affordable semis, terraces, flats and apartments to rent. Nationalise affordable housing and employ trades, have apprenticeships and construction capability owned by the government that delivers affordable, quality housing for the population. It might even help to bring house prices down. Don't contract it out. It'll just go way over budget and under deliver. It'll kill private landlords, but tough. Some things just need to be nationalised.
There's no need for nationalisation, just competition.
Our planning system hands power to large developers who can play the system, while protecting them from competition. Its the worst of all worlds.
Solve the problem at source, eliminate the planning system, eliminate "consent" and move to zoning whereby if land is zoned for construction it can be developed by their owners, no ifs, buts or equivocations - no planning necessary.
Also resolve the tax system by replacing our current taxes with a land value tax that taxes land the same whether its developed or undeveloped. Anyone who "land banks" is then paying the full whack of tax up front immediately from day one, not years down the line.
1. Those large developers have of course emerged from the free market.
2. The population at large won't stand for free-for-all planning. You cannot implement a major policy change that not only doesn't have broad support, has vehement and widespread opposition. Get real for once.
There's no free market if everything runs on planning permission.
This together with moneylenders being allowed to lend so much, combined with many punters wanting to get the biggest possible loans, is why residential property prices are sky high.
Get rid of planning permission and prices would fall by about 95%. There are places where a house on a tiny plot costs say £1m but if you were allowed you could build a house of similar or better quality for £50K.
Insurers also do very nicely out of high house prices, which are actually high land prices, which are built on thin air.
It's as Marx said: M → M'.
My rebuild cost was actually slightly higher than the property value last time I checked.
Gosh. Do you have a luxury mansion built in the middle of nowhere?
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
Much change is creeping, slow, subtle. That resulting from immigration is often abrupt, rapid, gaudy - just by the very nature of most immigrant cultures being very different to that previously prevailing in an area.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Thank you for that YouGov polling - interesting! I note YouGov track what people say are the negative impacts of immigration, but several of these are mythical. We’ve discussed before that crime is, if anything, lower in immigrant groups. Recent immigrants are less likely to receive benefits ( https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk ). So, why are people saying things that aren’t true?
It could be because they have some racist views. It could be because politicians/commentators tell them that immigrants are claiming benefits and causing crime. Either way, those items polling high would appear to support my thesis.
Even when we get to items like ‘Demand for public services’, where immigration is higher, where therefore demand for public services is higher, like in London, there are fewer expressing anti-immigration views. So even these items may reflect respondents giving post hoc explanations for their views.
40% of Londoners were born outside the UK so of course it will have different views on migration. Sure Tory/Refuk rhetoric and scapegoating are part of it but when people say public services and housing are the main reasons, and we have crises in both, why not take them at face value?
Non-immigrant Londoners are also more pro-immigration.
Public services are currently poor and housing costs are too high. I’m not surprised people are bothered by this. The extent to which either of those is because of immigration is debated, but, sure, it is understandable if people have concerns about population numbers. Some of the issues people identify in that polling, including the top one (immigrants claiming benefits) are myths. So, I take that polling with a large pinch of salt.
As you’ve said, it’s “obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together”. I don’t think there’s one simple explanation. But I do argue that rhetoric and scapegoating is a larger part of this than some analyses suggest. Yes, we should be investing more in infrastructure and public services, and building more housing, but I don’t think if we did that, anti-immigration feelings would go away.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
Absolutely. If there was a constant to the British psyche it is suspicion of change. The fundamental view is that all change is for the worse.
It wasn't immigration that ruined the left behind towns, it was the rise of globalisation and Internet commerce.
One imagines that Sunak and Julian Smith will be keeping a close eye on the first ever York and North Yorkshire Mayoral election… covering both their constituencies, the contest involves a Tory candidate who refuses to include the word “Conservative” in his election material and RefUK have ruled out standing… Lab and LibDem have candidates who are invisible so far in this far corner of the county…
Anecdotally, local Tory activists are openly endorsing RefUK tweets on other matters and have resorted to the kind of Islamophobia that was briefly hidden during the Boris era… imagine they will stay at home on May 2nd as the Mayor is the only local election other than the odd contested parish council…
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
We don't build enough houses because it's not the private house builder's job to solve the housing crisis. They just build enough houses that they can sell at prices they want to sell at. It's capitalism, innit? The government should be building affordable semis, terraces, flats and apartments to rent. Nationalise affordable housing and employ trades, have apprenticeships and construction capability owned by the government that delivers affordable, quality housing for the population. It might even help to bring house prices down. Don't contract it out. It'll just go way over budget and under deliver. It'll kill private landlords, but tough. Some things just need to be nationalised.
Different in Scotland. Obviously the laws of nature and economics change at Lamberton Toll and Carter Bar.
Mainly to do with a different rate of population growth.
10% in the last 20 years - that's still significant.
And at least they did something about it. When it was not as pressing as soputh of the border.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
To mention the millions of SeanTs roaming the streets of Euston and Camden.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
And may God help you. Personally, I've not dared go to the farmer's market to pick up polenta and sun dried tomatoes since Khan seized power. I'm down to my last jar of manuka honey here.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
If you need to go for the shaved parmesan in Islington, may I recommend
6 wheel drive, 4 wheel steering (turns like a London cab). The reverse is awesome - pull a lever and you get 6 speeds in reverse. 40 mph backwards is useful if the visit to the local Waitrose goes wrong.
On a per person basis it’s considerably worse than the headline figures. This was a period of rapid population growth. On a per person basis GDP has been falling consistently for two years.
Not sure calling this a “mild” or “technical” recession quite gets at the scale.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
If you need to go for the shaved parmesan in Islington, may I recommend
6 wheel drive, 4 wheel steering (turns like a London cab). The reverse is awesome - pull a lever and you get 6 speeds in reverse. 40 mph backwards is useful if the visit to the local Waitrose goes wrong.
No steering position in the rear, though, unlike this. So one has to be good with the mirrors. Tricky.
Economy in recession, smaller than when Richi took over.
Hold on, lads, it's working...
@lara_spirit Labour lead at 19 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times
CON 21 (+2) LAB 40 (-4) LIB DEM 10 (+1) REF UK 16 (+1) GRN 8 (=)
Fieldwork 26 - 27 March
Still don't think REFORM will poll anything like 16% on the day.
Not entirely sure that 1 in 10 of us will vote Lib Dem either. They are nowhere at the moment with apparently nothing to say. My guess is that roughly half that Green vote will go to Labour too. Which is probably just as well given their enthusiasm levels.
Certainly the Lib Dems are not being much reported at the national level. On the other hand they are "winning here" in a lot of local contests, and the effort going into target seats is pretty dramatic. I think they will be reexamined after the local results come in and the media looks for another angle on the inevitable Tory defeat story, That being said, the Lib Dems do need to be a bit more ambitious in what is likely to be an epochal general election; constitutional issues are likely to come to the fore soon, and the Lib Dems have plenty to say on that subject.
The Tories seem very unhappy with pesky peers. Perhaps they’d like to consider the LibDems’ strong support for Lords reform.
A little irony is that, had a group of Tory MPs (to a large extent the same headbangers who are most upset with the Lords now) not blocked Clegg's House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012, in breach of the Coalition Agreement, I believe the first Lords elections would have taken place at the same time as the 2019 General Election. Although that would've been on the list system, it was clearly a good election for the Tories and, with transitional members, ministerial members, and a small number of appointed, they'd actually be in better shape to get things like Rwanda passed than they are today.
Even the Coalition plans would have been 80% elected and 20% appointed still (including 12 Bishops ultimately).
As elections would have been under PR the Conservatives would not have won a majority in even a reformed upper house in 2019 either
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
If you need to go for the shaved parmesan in Islington, may I recommend
6 wheel drive, 4 wheel steering (turns like a London cab). The reverse is awesome - pull a lever and you get 6 speeds in reverse. 40 mph backwards is useful if the visit to the local Waitrose goes wrong.
No steering position in the rear, though, unlike this. So one has to be good with the mirrors. Tricky.
On reflection, perhgaps better not to put temptation in the way of the children in the back seat.
Learn to row - after a while steering at speed while facing backwards to your direction of motion, by looking over your shoulder, become second nature.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
People say that, but it’s a frequent topic of political discourse here, it’s a frequent topic of political discourse put out by the ruling political party, and it has been a dominant theme of referendum and election campaigns. There is a pretty widespread political consensus that current levels of immigration are too high: I think Con, Lab and RefUK have all said that.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
That's nonsense. Politicians and BTL commentators never stop banging on about it, the vast majority in opposition.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
If you need to go for the shaved parmesan in Islington, may I recommend
6 wheel drive, 4 wheel steering (turns like a London cab). The reverse is awesome - pull a lever and you get 6 speeds in reverse. 40 mph backwards is useful if the visit to the local Waitrose goes wrong.
No steering position in the rear, though, unlike this. So one has to be good with the mirrors. Tricky.
On reflection, perhgaps better not to put temptation in the way of the children in the back seat.
Learn to row - after a while steering at speed while facing backwards to your direction of motion, by looking over your shoulder, become second nature.
Used to splash around in boats (Dragons and cruisers) so should have put my experience with dinghies and two together to make four ...
Probably just margin of error etc, but todays YouGov seems to be the lowest for Labour since 2022, with a nasty looking double drop on the graph. Nice for them to have such a big cushion that these things don’t really matter
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
Economy in recession, smaller than when Richi took over.
Hold on, lads, it's working...
@lara_spirit Labour lead at 19 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times
CON 21 (+2) LAB 40 (-4) LIB DEM 10 (+1) REF UK 16 (+1) GRN 8 (=)
Fieldwork 26 - 27 March
Still don't think REFORM will poll anything like 16% on the day.
Not entirely sure that 1 in 10 of us will vote Lib Dem either. They are nowhere at the moment with apparently nothing to say. My guess is that roughly half that Green vote will go to Labour too. Which is probably just as well given their enthusiasm levels.
Certainly the Lib Dems are not being much reported at the national level. On the other hand they are "winning here" in a lot of local contests, and the effort going into target seats is pretty dramatic. I think they will be reexamined after the local results come in and the media looks for another angle on the inevitable Tory defeat story, That being said, the Lib Dems do need to be a bit more ambitious in what is likely to be an epochal general election; constitutional issues are likely to come to the fore soon, and the Lib Dems have plenty to say on that subject.
The Tories seem very unhappy with pesky peers. Perhaps they’d like to consider the LibDems’ strong support for Lords reform.
A little irony is that, had a group of Tory MPs (to a large extent the same headbangers who are most upset with the Lords now) not blocked Clegg's House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012, in breach of the Coalition Agreement, I believe the first Lords elections would have taken place at the same time as the 2019 General Election. Although that would've been on the list system, it was clearly a good election for the Tories and, with transitional members, ministerial members, and a small number of appointed, they'd actually be in better shape to get things like Rwanda passed than they are today.
Even the Coalition plans would have been 80% elected and 20% appointed still (including 12 Bishops ultimately).
As elections would have been under PR the Conservatives would not have won a majority in even a reformed upper house in 2019 either
Probably just margin of error etc, but todays YouGov seems to be the lowest for Labour since 2022, with a nasty looking double drop on the graph. Nice for them to have such a big cushion that these things don’t really matter
Fascinating to see that the suggestion one of us made that the Trussteroid impact crater did not affect the long term decline of the Tories is still holding true.
Probably just margin of error etc, but todays YouGov seems to be the lowest for Labour since 2022, with a nasty looking double drop on the graph. Nice for them to have such a big cushion that these things don’t really matter
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
Probably just margin of error etc, but todays YouGov seems to be the lowest for Labour since 2022, with a nasty looking double drop on the graph. Nice for them to have such a big cushion that these things don’t really matter
Probably just margin of error etc, but todays YouGov seems to be the lowest for Labour since 2022, with a nasty looking double drop on the graph. Nice for them to have such a big cushion that these things don’t really matter
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
Wimbledon is part of the golden crescent. Try telling me barking isnt semi third world.
Probably just margin of error etc, but todays YouGov seems to be the lowest for Labour since 2022, with a nasty looking double drop on the graph. Nice for them to have such a big cushion that these things don’t really matter
Lab 43, Con 25, Refuk 10, LD 10, Green 6 = Lab majority 252, Lab 451, Con 113, Refuk 0 Off that poll, Lab 40, Con 21, LD 10, Refuk 16, Green 8 = Lab majority 262, Lab 456, Con 90, Refuk 0
lol - and @bigjohnowls asked SKS fans to explain...
We are going to have some new fans of PR in the next 12 months for sure. Unfortunately we may have lost some PR fans in the Labour party who will be the decision makers........it is ever thus.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
If you need to go for the shaved parmesan in Islington, may I recommend
6 wheel drive, 4 wheel steering (turns like a London cab). The reverse is awesome - pull a lever and you get 6 speeds in reverse. 40 mph backwards is useful if the visit to the local Waitrose goes wrong.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
Wimbledon is part of the golden crescent. Try telling me barking isnt semi third world.
Economy in recession, smaller than when Richi took over.
Hold on, lads, it's working...
@lara_spirit Labour lead at 19 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times
CON 21 (+2) LAB 40 (-4) LIB DEM 10 (+1) REF UK 16 (+1) GRN 8 (=)
Fieldwork 26 - 27 March
Still don't think REFORM will poll anything like 16% on the day.
Not entirely sure that 1 in 10 of us will vote Lib Dem either. They are nowhere at the moment with apparently nothing to say. My guess is that roughly half that Green vote will go to Labour too. Which is probably just as well given their enthusiasm levels.
Certainly the Lib Dems are not being much reported at the national level. On the other hand they are "winning here" in a lot of local contests, and the effort going into target seats is pretty dramatic. I think they will be reexamined after the local results come in and the media looks for another angle on the inevitable Tory defeat story, That being said, the Lib Dems do need to be a bit more ambitious in what is likely to be an epochal general election; constitutional issues are likely to come to the fore soon, and the Lib Dems have plenty to say on that subject.
The Tories seem very unhappy with pesky peers. Perhaps they’d like to consider the LibDems’ strong support for Lords reform.
A little irony is that, had a group of Tory MPs (to a large extent the same headbangers who are most upset with the Lords now) not blocked Clegg's House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012, in breach of the Coalition Agreement, I believe the first Lords elections would have taken place at the same time as the 2019 General Election. Although that would've been on the list system, it was clearly a good election for the Tories and, with transitional members, ministerial members, and a small number of appointed, they'd actually be in better shape to get things like Rwanda passed than they are today.
Even the Coalition plans would have been 80% elected and 20% appointed still (including 12 Bishops ultimately).
As elections would have been under PR the Conservatives would not have won a majority in even a reformed upper house in 2019 either
They'd not have quite had a majority but would have been in a significantly stronger position.
The Tories would probably have had or been close to a bare majority of elected members because the list system had a 5% threshold applied on a regional basis which would've been bad news for the Lib Dems, Greens, Faragists etc and quite good for Tories/Labour. The transitional members would have been likely to be notably loyal (as appointed from existing peers by party leaders and declining in number at subsequent elections so rebellion would be death at this point). There would be fewer bishops. Appointed members would be mainly Tory. Ministerial members would be Tory payroll vote.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
Prepare for a shock. The price of the last bottle of olive oil I bought was wince making. Not sure what has happened to the supply but there is clearly problems somewhere.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
If you need to go for the shaved parmesan in Islington, may I recommend
6 wheel drive, 4 wheel steering (turns like a London cab). The reverse is awesome - pull a lever and you get 6 speeds in reverse. 40 mph backwards is useful if the visit to the local Waitrose goes wrong.
Is this the new Range Rover?
Sadly no. It does make you wonder what a developed, reliable, civilianised version of this type of drive train would have accomplished.
I would guess that sooner or later, there will be polls showing Labour support in the high thirties, which is, of course, still enough for Labour to win.
The question is how much Reform support actually goes Conservative on the day.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
People say that, but it’s a frequent topic of political discourse here, it’s a frequent topic of political discourse put out by the ruling political party, and it has been a dominant theme of referendum and election campaigns. There is a pretty widespread political consensus that current levels of immigration are too high: I think Con, Lab and RefUK have all said that.
It's talked about endlessly in the newspapers and other media as well.
The view which is beyond political discourse, which cannot be said, is that immigration is a good thing and we need more of it.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
Prepare for a shock. The price of the last bottle of olive oil I bought was wince making. Not sure what has happened to the supply but there is clearly problems somewhere.
Disease is one. There's also the fact that while olives are a very lucrative crop, growing and harvesting them is a lot of hard work, and a lot of people who inherit olive groves just can't be bothered.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
The vast majority of immigration is under the direct control of the government. There’s no need to talk about “targeting”: the government can pretty much pick whatever level of immigration it wants. They hand out the visas.
What is too much will depend on multiple factors. We let in 100k+ in 2023 through humanitarian routes, mostly from Ukraine and Hong Kong. It would be nice to live in a world where people didn’t need to flee Ukraine and Hong Kong, but as they do, I think it’s right we should let them in. So, I don’t think that number is too much in one sense, but it is in another.
Looking at the total 2023 figure, you can easily imagine this coming down by 700k through student numbers stabilising and inflows from Ukraine/Hong Kong and EUSS falling.
Probably just margin of error etc, but todays YouGov seems to be the lowest for Labour since 2022, with a nasty looking double drop on the graph. Nice for them to have such a big cushion that these things don’t really matter
Margin of error or not, I do think the recent meteoric rise of Reform is concealing a slight tightening of the polls between the blocs.
People are far too quick to dismiss the idea that (some) people saying Reform are disaffected Tories who will return home come election time. I am very confident a large proportion of the recently added Reform vote share are exactly this. They were polling in the mid to upper single figures until very recently. Then suddenly they've leaped into the low teens on a number of polls and 10-12% in others. At the same time Tory vote share has stepped downwards. It's a very direct correlation.
So those extra, what, 6% of Reform voters were happily supporting the conservatives until late last year - through the Truss debacle, a year of inflation and interest rate hikes, crumbling infrastructure, cancelled HS2 and so on. These are not never-Tory voters.
Assume Reform gets back down to a still generous 7% at the election and 6% goes back to the conservatives, before counting any swingback of undecideds. That tightens the vote significantly. Not enough for a hung parliament but enough to avoid a 1997-style result.
My prediction is that the Reform bubble starts to burst after the May elections and then during the campaign itself.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
Prepare for a shock. The price of the last bottle of olive oil I bought was wince making. Not sure what has happened to the supply but there is clearly problems somewhere.
We have switched from extra virgin to plain. #itsgrimupnorthlondon
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
Amusing that Laurence Fox is arguing he sees the wicked hand of Khan in the rejection of his nomination papers, when it's fairly clear Fox being absent helps Hall and harms Khan.
It's only very marginal as he'd have got a derisory vote if he'd been on the ballot, but his basic campaign was anti-Khan, anti-woke, anti-ULEZ, so his few voters would pretty clearly break for Hall.
Probably just margin of error etc, but todays YouGov seems to be the lowest for Labour since 2022, with a nasty looking double drop on the graph. Nice for them to have such a big cushion that these things don’t really matter
Margin of error or not, I do think the recent meteoric rise of Reform is concealing a slight tightening of the polls between the blocs.
People are far too quick to dismiss the idea that (some) people saying Reform are disaffected Tories who will return home come election time. I am very confident a large proportion of the recently added Reform vote share are exactly this. They were polling in the mid to upper single figures until very recently. Then suddenly they've leaped into the low teens on a number of polls and 10-12% in others. At the same time Tory vote share has stepped downwards. It's a very direct correlation.
So those extra, what, 6% of Reform voters were happily supporting the conservatives until late last year - through the Truss debacle, a year of inflation and interest rate hikes, crumbling infrastructure, cancelled HS2 and so on. These are not never-Tory voters.
Assume Reform gets back down to a still generous 7% at the election and 6% goes back to the conservatives, before counting any swingback of undecideds. That tightens the vote significantly. Not enough for a hung parliament but enough to avoid a 1997-style result.
My prediction is that the Reform bubble starts to burst after the May elections and then during the campaign itself.
They've also got a distinct disadvantage on ground game, established local entrenchment, canvass data etc etc. On its own will cost a nibble of their performance vs polls imo
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
Has this morning’s debate not been rational?
This is a somewhat unusual forum in exactly that respect.
Try challenging the triple lock in politics, in public, for example. You'll have death threats within the minute.
Probably just margin of error etc, but todays YouGov seems to be the lowest for Labour since 2022, with a nasty looking double drop on the graph. Nice for them to have such a big cushion that these things don’t really matter
Margin of error or not, I do think the recent meteoric rise of Reform is concealing a slight tightening of the polls between the blocs.
People are far too quick to dismiss the idea that (some) people saying Reform are disaffected Tories who will return home come election time. I am very confident a large proportion of the recently added Reform vote share are exactly this. They were polling in the mid to upper single figures until very recently. Then suddenly they've leaped into the low teens on a number of polls and 10-12% in others. At the same time Tory vote share has stepped downwards. It's a very direct correlation.
So those extra, what, 6% of Reform voters were happily supporting the conservatives until late last year - through the Truss debacle, a year of inflation and interest rate hikes, crumbling infrastructure, cancelled HS2 and so on. These are not never-Tory voters.
Assume Reform gets back down to a still generous 7% at the election and 6% goes back to the conservatives, before counting any swingback of undecideds. That tightens the vote significantly. Not enough for a hung parliament but enough to avoid a 1997-style result.
My prediction is that the Reform bubble starts to burst after the May elections and then during the campaign itself.
Whilst I think that there is something in that very similar arguments can be made for the Greens on the other side. I think about half their current polling will go to Labour which will offset a significant part of this tightening.
Amusing that Laurence Fox is arguing he sees the wicked hand of Khan in the rejection of his nomination papers, when it's fairly clear Fox being absent helps Hall and harms Khan.
It's only very marginal as he'd have got a derisory vote if he'd been on the ballot, but his basic campaign was anti-Khan, anti-woke, anti-ULEZ, so his few voters would pretty clearly break for Hall.
Quite. He was sixth with 1.9% last time, beating by a YouTuber standing for the lols.
I tried to edit one of my psots and got the message "You need the Vanilla.Comments.Edit permission to do that". What's that about? I've been on this site forever and never had that before. And I don't use vanilla to access the site.
It means your edit window of 6 mins has timed out.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
Has this morning’s debate not been rational?
This is a somewhat unusual forum in exactly that respect.
Try challenging the triple lock in politics, in public, for example. You'll have death threats within the minute.
I agree that it’s far easier to have a discussion about immigration than it is about the triple lock.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
Has this morning’s debate not been rational?
This is a somewhat unusual forum in exactly that respect.
Try challenging the triple lock in politics, in public, for example. You'll have death threats within the minute.
I agree that it’s far easier to have a discussion about immigration than it is about the triple lock.
Quite. The moment someone supports it on PB, someone else wants to apply Logan's Run. Death threats.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
You'd like to think not staff given that the addition of 500,000 more employees seems to have achieved the square root of F all.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
Has this morning’s debate not been rational?
This is a somewhat unusual forum in exactly that respect.
Try challenging the triple lock in politics, in public, for example. You'll have death threats within the minute.
I agree that it’s far easier to have a discussion about immigration than it is about the triple lock.
Quite. The moment someone supports it on PB, someone else wants to apply Logan's Run. Death threats.
Now, that's a little unfair. I wasn't being entirely serious with that suggestion.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
Has this morning’s debate not been rational?
This is a somewhat unusual forum in exactly that respect.
Try challenging the triple lock in politics, in public, for example. You'll have death threats within the minute.
eg The Telegraph reporting "fury" that pensioners received no benefit from cutting National Insurance.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
People say that, but it’s a frequent topic of political discourse here, it’s a frequent topic of political discourse put out by the ruling political party, and it has been a dominant theme of referendum and election campaigns. There is a pretty widespread political consensus that current levels of immigration are too high: I think Con, Lab and RefUK have all said that.
It's talked about endlessly in the newspapers and other media as well.
The view which is beyond political discourse, which cannot be said, is that immigration is a good thing and we need more of it.
No! Both views (more accurately views across the spectrum) can, and are, made regularly and effectively. It is not a problem.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
Has this morning’s debate not been rational?
This is a somewhat unusual forum in exactly that respect.
Try challenging the triple lock in politics, in public, for example. You'll have death threats within the minute.
I agree that it’s far easier to have a discussion about immigration than it is about the triple lock.
Quite. The moment someone supports it on PB, someone else wants to apply Logan's Run. Death threats.
Yes on PB viz the Triple Lock we have the reverse of the position in mainstream politics. It's as popular as Laurence Fox at the Crepe Van in Hampstead.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
Prepare for a shock. The price of the last bottle of olive oil I bought was wince making. Not sure what has happened to the supply but there is clearly problems somewhere.
Disease is one. There's also the fact that while olives are a very lucrative crop, growing and harvesting them is a lot of hard work, and a lot of people who inherit olive groves just can't be bothered.
Disease is certainly a factor. And maybe even the lassitude of those layabout foreigners.
But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to overlook Brexit.
‘While prices are up across the continent, in the UK another factor is in play: Brexit.
"The cost of customs documentation leaving Europe and entering the UK is approximately £95 per shipment," says Mike.
"Transporters have all imposed a Brexit surcharge for extra admin duties performed by them in the importation of goods from Europe."
Pallets coming into the UK from the continent are now subject to more stringent fire resistance rules - meaning the cost of pallets has "tripled, even in some cases quadrupled".’
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
Prepare for a shock. The price of the last bottle of olive oil I bought was wince making. Not sure what has happened to the supply but there is clearly problems somewhere.
We have switched from extra virgin to plain. #itsgrimupnorthlondon
Lidl is the place to go. Consistently the cheapest for both extra virgin and non-virgin (deflowered?) olive oil. I have been stocking up each visit.
Also helps if you roast fatty joints every Sunday as the dripping can get you through most of the week’s cooking needs. This week we have some lovely duck fat, last week pork lard, week before chicken fat.
Story should be Laurence Fox attempts to bribe election officials to overlook his invalid nomination by 'accidentally overpaying deposit'.
I always find that, when filling out important paperwork, it's best to avoid being coked up to your eyeballs.
Given I am absolutely certain dear Laurence would've followed that advice, though, I'm at a loss to explain the multiple basic errors.
If he himself is reasonably competent, as you suggest, then I suspect the answer is that he delegated the task to somebody else.
Do you have any evidence for this "reasonably competent" allegation? Sounds like a conspiracy theory - implausible idea directly contradicted by the observable facts.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
Has this morning’s debate not been rational?
This is a somewhat unusual forum in exactly that respect.
Try challenging the triple lock in politics, in public, for example. You'll have death threats within the minute.
eg The Telegraph reporting "fury" that pensioners received no benefit from cutting National Insurance.
Well, that's because they don't pay it at all.
“Fury at” is one of those journalistic shorthand’s isn’t it, like “police quiz x”, “romp”, “beleaguered” / “embattled”, “Britons”.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
If immigration were spread evenly across the country, it would be less of an issue. But it isn't. It is still uncommon to see a non-white person in the SW outside Bristol and to a lesser extent Exeter, where non-white faces are often students rather than family groups. It's further from London, very limited rented accommodation, fewer opportunities for black economy jobs ties for them to take advantage/be taken advantage of - and no familiar communities to be part of. Immigration is generally not a doorstep issue down here - housing is though, despite no pressure to compete with immigrants. Schools are far less affected, hospitals more so - but that is incoming oldies fighting for a hip or knee replacement with other incoming oldies.
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
Yes, I think lots of people don’t like change. There’s plenty of change I don’t like. I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with not liking change.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
It's a combination
1) Change 2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
That seems to me like a lopsided characterisation. A huge amount of modern democracy is directed at stopping change: see NIMBYs! The ruling party for the last 14 years has been a party called the Conservatives, a name that describes their feelings towards change.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
In thecae of immigration, there has been a definite attempt make any opposition, to any level of it, beyond political discourse.
Seeing as it is quite regularly the number one topic, it doesn't seem to have been a very effective or impactful attempt......
OK - How much immigration is too much? How much immigration should the government be targeting?
10m a year net is clearly too much, as is 5m, as is 2m. 0 is clearly not enough.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
Very good - now try saying that in politics.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
Has this morning’s debate not been rational?
This is a somewhat unusual forum in exactly that respect.
Try challenging the triple lock in politics, in public, for example. You'll have death threats within the minute.
eg The Telegraph reporting "fury" that pensioners received no benefit from cutting National Insurance.
Well, that's because they don't pay it at all.
“Fury at” is one of those journalistic shorthand’s isn’t it, like “police quiz x”, “romp”, “beleaguered” / “embattled”, “Britons”.
My particular favourite is 'boffin'. Never met one (despite 30 years in science), don't know what one is, but the media love 'em.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
Prepare for a shock. The price of the last bottle of olive oil I bought was wince making. Not sure what has happened to the supply but there is clearly problems somewhere.
We have switched from extra virgin to plain. #itsgrimupnorthlondon
Never mind -just wait a few years. My decorative lollipop Olive Trees (snip at £20 from Morrisons) produced a couple of reasonable size olives last summer - very bitter though.
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
Prepare for a shock. The price of the last bottle of olive oil I bought was wince making. Not sure what has happened to the supply but there is clearly problems somewhere.
Disease is one. There's also the fact that while olives are a very lucrative crop, growing and harvesting them is a lot of hard work, and a lot of people who inherit olive groves just can't be bothered.
Disease is certainly a factor. And maybe even the lassitude of those layabout foreigners.
But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to overlook Brexit.
‘While prices are up across the continent, in the UK another factor is in play: Brexit.
"The cost of customs documentation leaving Europe and entering the UK is approximately £95 per shipment," says Mike.
"Transporters have all imposed a Brexit surcharge for extra admin duties performed by them in the importation of goods from Europe."
Pallets coming into the UK from the continent are now subject to more stringent fire resistance rules - meaning the cost of pallets has "tripled, even in some cases quadrupled".’
It's not so much their being layabouts, it's just there are easier ways of making a living. It's similar to the way that Italian or Indian restaurants close, because the children have easier ways of making a living. When I was in Crete, (which probably has the finest olive oil), I talked it over with a grower, who said that thousands of trees have essentially been abandoned..
Good morning. Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular? Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted? It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like. Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
"Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
Immigration is unpopular.
Immigration for nurses is not unpopular. Immigration for care home workers is not unpopular. Immigration for highly skilled roles generally is not unpopular. Immigration for Ukrainians invaded by Russians is not unpopular Immigration for Hong Kongers escaping the Chinese is not unpopular. Immigration from students improves our already bad balance of payments by £40bn and saves the taxpayer a lot in university funding.
So yes immigration is unpopular but that doesn't mean stopping it would be popular either.
Oh, absolutely - that's exactly my point. It is *only* unpopular in the racism sense, not the practical sense.
I disagree with that - it is mostly unpopular because we don't build the infrastructure and houses at a rate that matches expected immigration. At best we build it to match the level of immigration the politicians promise which is very innaccurate and always too low for reality.
Do you have evidence that this is why? I think immigration is mostly unpopular because some voters have racist/xenophobic tendencies or just don’t like change, and because some politicians/commentators/newspapers blame immigration for numerous ills.
Concern around immigration in topic polling tends to be driven by the amount politicians are talking about immigration, I suggest.
Is lack of infrastructure was the problem, you’d expect anti-immigration polling to be higher in areas of high immigration and high housing costs, like London. But it isn’t.
Its obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together.
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits Demand for Public Services Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above. Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
Bear in mind though many people arent honest with their views on this. And you wouldnt expect anti i.migration sentiment to be high in london as london is predoninantly full of ethnic minorities and the upper middle class who can insulate themselves from the problems.
Have you ever been to London?
Yes i have. I lived there for quite a few years too. The nice areas of london are basically a crescent running from richmond in the sw up the river to central london then out to north london primrose hill hampstead etc. Thats where the upper middle class live. Outside that is the real London a mix of semi third world shittiness intermixed with some better areas.
Yes, I pity the poor benighted people of Blackheath, Wimbledon, Chiselhurst, Buckhurst Hill etc, in their semi third world conditions. I'd deliver them food parcels were I not cowering in my home, fearful of Khan's hooded mobs of You Les Enforcers.
The olive oil is running low. I may have to brave the mean streets of north London this afternoon.
Prepare for a shock. The price of the last bottle of olive oil I bought was wince making. Not sure what has happened to the supply but there is clearly problems somewhere.
We have switched from extra virgin to plain. #itsgrimupnorthlondon
Never mind -just wait a few years. My decorative lollipop Olive Trees (snip at £20 from Morrisons) produced reasonable olives last summer - very bitter though.
I attempted to plant a mini olive grove at my vineyard: 25 small trees in 2 rows on a warm slope. They died due to a mixture of competition (I didn’t clear the vegetation around them enough) and deer attack (I didn’t protect them sufficiently).
Comments
Yougov track negative impact of migration and the top 3 (currently all about the same) are:
Benefits
Demand for Public Services
Increasing Demand for Housing
Allowing people with extreme views and terrorist sympathisers is next, and at a similar level to the above.
Damaging our culture and traditions, which would be the big racism/xenophobia marker is about half that level.
I think that ties in with experience that most of the country is not particularly racist, and its only a smallish group (5-10%?) that are strongly racist.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/what-are-the-main-negative-effects-of-immigration
The only time you hear it is people who have moved down here, usually from the West Midlands. Retirement migration to the SW has been going on for decades. They would have come anyway, but claiming Brum or the Black Country is "not what it was" gives some rationale for upping sticks. Whilst you will find the occasional out-and-out racist, most of those who feel edged out have no personal beef one-on-one with immigrants. Their beef is change, the rapid rate of that change, and the loss of what they knew before. It gives them a reason on their own terms for doing what they would have done anyway: move.
You’ll only be mugged or not appreciated.
But it doesn't matter because everyone over about the age of five carries a little computer that's connected to a big network and shows them lots of adverts.
It could be because they have some racist views. It could be because politicians/commentators tell them that immigrants are claiming benefits and causing crime. Either way, those items polling high would appear to support my thesis.
Even when we get to items like ‘Demand for public services’, where immigration is higher, where therefore demand for public services is higher, like in London, there are fewer expressing anti-immigration views. So even these items may reflect respondents giving post hoc explanations for their views.
Loathe as I am to put weight on a single poll, YouGov is quite interesting on a few levels. Labour at 40% has been seen recently with More in Common once this year and Deltapoll in December. On its own it means nothing but if we see Labour dip into the 30s would that set collies a wobbling in Starmer towers like sub 20 was a 'monent' for the Tories last week? (I.e. we see how led by polls the current Lab leadership is)
Reform on 16% is a bit ooooof! YouGov of course is the most Reformy pollster lately but ignoring UNS (useless with this big a swing BXP to Reform) you'd need to start looking seriously at where they might pick up seat(s) (not that I think personally they get 16% in reality). And despite the Tory mini recovery from the teen doldrums still only 5% from crossover, which would be seismic.
Edit - and the regionals (which are weighted with yougov? If not, ignore) have Reform matching Tories in the North and Midlands and a tightish race between all 4 including LD in the South, Labour dominating London
So, whilst just one poll and acknowledging that limitation, it does sit right on a number of thresholds, making it in itself an interesting little data puddle
Since 2001, Scotland's population has increased by 8%. The number of dwellings has increased by 15%.
Since 2005 house prices have increased by 103% - compared with a measly 91% in England.
It's not a "whole different discussion". It's even worse!
Nobody made him take the job now. Brexit, Covid and Ukraine were all known factors. He could have sat it out another decade.
Again, though, is the change experienced largely due to immigration, or is it due to diverse other factors and immigration is the convenient scapegoat? It’s easy to blame change on the people moving in.
See new posts
Conversation
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
Labour lead at 19pts
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 40% (-4)
CON: 21% (+2)
REF: 16% (+1)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
via
@YouGov
, 26 - 27 Mar
SKS fans?
1) Change
2) The repeated emphasis on "You are not allowed to stop the change. You are not allowed to oppose the change. If the change has any negative consequences, then that's your problem"
2) is especially the problem in a modern democracy.
Public services are currently poor and housing costs are too high. I’m not surprised people are bothered by this. The extent to which either of those is because of immigration is debated, but, sure, it is understandable if people have concerns about population numbers. Some of the issues people identify in that polling, including the top one (immigrants claiming benefits) are myths. So, I take that polling with a large pinch of salt.
As you’ve said, it’s “obviously complicated and a lot of related factors mixed up together”. I don’t think there’s one simple explanation. But I do argue that rhetoric and scapegoating is a larger part of this than some analyses suggest. Yes, we should be investing more in infrastructure and public services, and building more housing, but I don’t think if we did that, anti-immigration feelings would go away.
But, yes, there is a lot of change, of multiple types, economic, social, and different political groups have differing views on what change is good or bad.
It wasn't immigration that ruined the left behind towns, it was the rise of globalisation and Internet commerce.
Anecdotally, local Tory activists are openly endorsing RefUK tweets on other matters and have resorted to the kind of Islamophobia that was briefly hidden during the Boris era… imagine they will stay at home on May 2nd as the Mayor is the only local election other than the odd contested parish council…
And at least they did something about it. When it was not as pressing as soputh of the border.
On the upside is the styling of the cars - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbzhF_G8aXs&t=15s
6 wheel drive, 4 wheel steering (turns like a London cab). The reverse is awesome - pull a lever and you get 6 speeds in reverse. 40 mph backwards is useful if the visit to the local Waitrose goes wrong.
On a per person basis it’s considerably worse than the headline figures. This was a period of rapid population growth. On a per person basis GDP has been falling consistently for two years.
Not sure calling this a “mild” or “technical” recession quite gets at the scale.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/italy/autoblinda-ab41/
On reflection, perhgaps better not to put temptation in the way of the children in the back seat.
As elections would have been under PR the Conservatives would not have won a majority in even a reformed upper house in 2019 either
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Reform_Bill_2012
https://x.com/lara_spirit/status/1773259310266528028?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Lab 43, Con 25, Refuk 10, LD 10, Green 6 = Lab majority 252, Lab 451, Con 113, Refuk 0
Off that poll, Lab 40, Con 21, LD 10, Refuk 16, Green 8 = Lab majority 262, Lab 456, Con 90, Refuk 0
We might otherwise have ended up with one of Massive Johnson coming back or Lettuce Lady somehow carrying on.
The optimum rate is going to be a mix between demand in core services, our need for profit from students and how much infrastructure and housing we can build. ONS predicting 4m over 10 years, which seems both a reasonable estimate based on last 10 years, and something we can manage if we are pro-active about it.
So currently I would say the answer to targeting is in the 250-500k per year range. And the current level is probably too much if sustained for a decade, much above the current rate would be too high.
Other opinions will of course differ and that is fine and part of political debate.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/143647925#/?channel=RES_BUY
Wasn't so hard.
The Tories would probably have had or been close to a bare majority of elected members because the list system had a 5% threshold applied on a regional basis which would've been bad news for the Lib Dems, Greens, Faragists etc and quite good for Tories/Labour. The transitional members would have been likely to be notably loyal (as appointed from existing peers by party leaders and declining in number at subsequent elections so rebellion would be death at this point). There would be fewer bishops. Appointed members would be mainly Tory. Ministerial members would be Tory payroll vote.
The question is how much Reform support actually goes Conservative on the day.
The view which is beyond political discourse, which cannot be said, is that immigration is a good thing and we need more of it.
Given I am absolutely certain dear Laurence would've followed that advice, though, I'm at a loss to explain the multiple basic errors.
The problem is that rational debate has been removed.
Bit like the NHS, where a shouty match about "more" is all we ever seem to get. More of what?
What is too much will depend on multiple factors. We let in 100k+ in 2023 through humanitarian routes, mostly from Ukraine and Hong Kong. It would be nice to live in a world where people didn’t need to flee Ukraine and Hong Kong, but as they do, I think it’s right we should let them in. So, I don’t think that number is too much in one sense, but it is in another.
Looking at the total 2023 figure, you can easily imagine this coming down by 700k through student numbers stabilising and inflows from Ukraine/Hong Kong and EUSS falling.
People are far too quick to dismiss the idea that (some) people saying Reform are disaffected Tories who will return home come election time. I am very confident a large proportion of the recently added Reform vote share are exactly this. They were polling in the mid to upper single figures until very recently. Then suddenly they've leaped into the low teens on a number of polls and 10-12% in others. At the same time Tory vote share has stepped downwards. It's a very direct correlation.
So those extra, what, 6% of Reform voters were happily supporting the conservatives until late last year - through the Truss debacle, a year of inflation and interest rate hikes, crumbling infrastructure, cancelled HS2 and so on. These are not never-Tory voters.
Assume Reform gets back down to a still generous 7% at the election and 6% goes back to the conservatives, before counting any swingback of undecideds. That tightens the vote significantly. Not enough for a hung parliament but enough to avoid a 1997-style result.
My prediction is that the Reform bubble starts to burst after the May elections and then during the campaign itself.
It's only very marginal as he'd have got a derisory vote if he'd been on the ballot, but his basic campaign was anti-Khan, anti-woke, anti-ULEZ, so his few voters would pretty clearly break for Hall.
Try challenging the triple lock in politics, in public, for example. You'll have death threats within the minute.
Well, that's because they don't pay it at all.
But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to overlook Brexit.
‘While prices are up across the continent, in the UK another factor is in play: Brexit.
"The cost of customs documentation leaving Europe and entering the UK is approximately £95 per shipment," says Mike.
"Transporters have all imposed a Brexit surcharge for extra admin duties performed by them in the importation of goods from Europe."
Pallets coming into the UK from the continent are now subject to more stringent fire resistance rules - meaning the cost of pallets has "tripled, even in some cases quadrupled".’
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/a-bacterial-infection-and-gangsters-the-story-of-olive-oils-110-price-rise-and-what-to-look-for-in-the-supermarket-13097981
Also helps if you roast fatty joints every Sunday as the dripping can get you through most of the week’s cooking needs. This week we have some lovely duck fat, last week pork lard, week before chicken fat.
May 2020 51/20 =+31
Mar 2022 33/43 =-10
Sep 2023 29/51 = -22
Mar 2024 29/55 =-26
SKS fans please explain