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.
An interesting segue from "immigrant" to "non-white face" there.
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
I 'think' the term boffin relates to scientists that are rather detached from the real world (perhaps the scientist in the Simpsons, for instance). All the scientists I know and work with are not at all like that. Most are complex souls with families and hobbies the same as the rest of the population.
Of course the really good profs can be a bit extreme. To make it in academia you often need to put in a lot of out of hours work (evenings and weekends writing grants, papers etc). Those who are really driven excel at doing this and reach the top. They often find it hard to retire, as they have less outside interests. But even for them, most are thoroughly grounded.
I once had a conversation with a lay person (a neighbour) about creativity. I told her I think the scientists are some of the most creative people I know. New discoveries don't just happen.
Not sure of the boffin definition, but the description of academia and the types of academic is spot on.
And I (and Turbo it seems) are not boffins by that defintion. I'm reluctant to do work out of hours and I'll retire the moment I hit pension age, as long as Thames Water hasn't wiped out the USS by then
The journalistic counterpoint to the boffin being, I think, the Luvvie.
Both of which these days are considered woke though. Not sure if there's a journospeak word for the types who weren't good at either arts or sciences at school but excelled in PE. We don't use "Jocks" in British English.
There is "pundit" of course, and "bean counter".
So, in expert/boss world there is:
- Boffins: scientists of some description (can be any sort of scientist in tabloid speak) - Luvvies: people successful in one or more of the arts - Pundits: journalists or sports commentators - Bean counters: accountants or Treasury officials - Legal eagles / "hotshot" lawyers: less used but occasionally appears for law experts - Quacks: doctor - Bosses: heads of industry organisations or large businesses (usually prefixed - see City bosses, Retail bosses, Water company bosses)
EDIT: I forgot "spooks". Any other tabloid favourites?
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
WW2 slang for a scientist or engineer in R&D - RAE Farnborough, the radar developers at TRE, operational research in the navy, physiologists studying life support mechanics in aircraft and subs, and so on. Civilian, not uniformed. Overtones of strangeness/nerdiness/incomprehensible brainpower but also respect (when they came up with the goods).
But consider that one of the classic boffin images was Prof Peabody in the Eagle.
Carried on into postwar usage and fossilised into a calcified cyst in the brains of tabloid journalists.
See Francis Spufford's "Backroom Boys". Interesting combination of eccentric and practical. And with an alarming tendency to know something about everything?
And with an alarming tendency to know something about everything. That describes many on PB.
Go to the poll of polls. Starting in 2022, draw a trend line through labour and conservative ratings and get back to me about trends. FYI, one poll is not a trend
Im sort of with BJO on this (the trend, not the rest of his ideological apparatus). There is I think a tightening between the blocs, and a decline in Labour favourability, that’s being hidden by the Reform rise.
I am.just not seeing it the poll of polls. They regularly undulate back and forth. It would take a more decisive shift for me to call it. I guess I would have to do a t-test to prove it. But eyeballing the running average of tory and labour support I would say it is overall still widening.
4th poll of the week this one shows a 3% drop in Lab lead to 15 confirms the trend
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
Mine is also holding a clipboard. I think I associate "boffin" with "1930s-1950s government scientist". They are doing something practical, and a clipboard offers them a mobile information gathering capability.
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
Boffins must be holding up a test tube or conical flask to the light and, if female, must be blonde and have that 'take off the glasses and shake down your hair' nerd sexiness
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
Mine is also holding a clipboard. I think I associate "boffin" with "1930s-1950s government scientist". They are doing something practical, and a clipboard offers them a mobile information gathering capability.
Clipboards are the defining feature of voluntary parking attendants at council run events
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
WW2 slang for a scientist or engineer in R&D - RAE Farnborough, the radar developers at TRE, operational research in the navy, physiologists studying life support mechanics in aircraft and subs, and so on. Civilian, not uniformed. Overtones of strangeness/nerdiness/incomprehensible brainpower but also respect (when they came up with the goods).
But consider that one of the classic boffin images was Prof Peabody in the Eagle.
Carried on into postwar usage and fossilised into a calcified cyst in the brains of tabloid journalists.
See Francis Spufford's "Backroom Boys". Interesting combination of eccentric and practical. And with an alarming tendency to know something about everything?
And with an alarming tendency to know something about everything. That describes many on PB.
Boffin was military slang, though, was it not ? Denoted their appreciation of the practical use of the 'backroom boys', combined with the military mild contempt for the non-combatant.
Along with ignorance of exactly what it was that they were doing.
Remember the PANIC 5% Labour lead poll a week and a bit before the 1997 election...?
No panic in 2017.
Things could only get better and the did.
2024 things can be exactly the same, but with worse austerity doesn't have the same ring to it
This hatred for the idea of defeating the Tories which inhabits the crank left truly is a thing of wonder. The Tories win more elections than not because they accept there is compromise in real life. No compromise for the crankies and thus no power and thus self-righteous whining which is all that keeps them going.
Your "they're all Tories analysis" only works if everyone to the right of Tony Benn is a "Tory". Which is pitiful more than it is laughable.
Indeed true. BJO is actively campaigning for Sunak to win and a max of two Green MPs - MPs who would completely be ignored by a returning Con government.
Just how stupid that is is utterly staggering.
BJO is campaigning for Sunak to win?
Please Explain?
I am campaigning for a positive change to politics via my wonderful new Party.
Your luke warm support for Corbyn involved how much campaigning for Labour 🥀
An awful lot of shite on here this morning from those who think immigration of any type can only be a good thing and those who don't agree already tacitly accept this without realising it or else need to be reprogrammed.
This is quite simple:
(1) People can be tolerant of quite high legal migration, provided there are rules and it is controlled. (2) People are not tolerant of illegal migration across the Channel to sneak around them with the aid & abetment of organised criminals, and the giant loopholes we have in our asylum process, and want it stopped.
It presses at two fundamentally very British things of fair play and waiting your turn.
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
I 'think' the term boffin relates to scientists that are rather detached from the real world (perhaps the scientist in the Simpsons, for instance). All the scientists I know and work with are not at all like that. Most are complex souls with families and hobbies the same as the rest of the population.
Of course the really good profs can be a bit extreme. To make it in academia you often need to put in a lot of out of hours work (evenings and weekends writing grants, papers etc). Those who are really driven excel at doing this and reach the top. They often find it hard to retire, as they have less outside interests. But even for them, most are thoroughly grounded.
I once had a conversation with a lay person (a neighbour) about creativity. I told her I think the scientists are some of the most creative people I know. New discoveries don't just happen.
Not sure of the boffin definition, but the description of academia and the types of academic is spot on.
And I (and Turbo it seems) are not boffins by that defintion. I'm reluctant to do work out of hours and I'll retire the moment I hit pension age, as long as Thames Water hasn't wiped out the USS by then
The journalistic counterpoint to the boffin being, I think, the Luvvie.
Both of which these days are considered woke though. Not sure if there's a journospeak word for the types who weren't good at either arts or sciences at school but excelled in PE. We don't use "Jocks" in British English.
There is "pundit" of course, and "bean counter".
So, in expert/boss world there is:
- Boffins: scientists of some description (can be any sort of scientist in tabloid speak) - Luvvies: people successful in one or more of the arts - Pundits: journalists or sports commentators - Bean counters: accountants or Treasury officials - Legal eagles / "hotshot" lawyers: less used but occasionally appears for law experts - Quacks: doctor - Bosses: heads of industry organisations or large businesses (usually prefixed - see City bosses, Retail bosses, Water company bosses)
EDIT: I forgot "spooks". Any other tabloid favourites?
We used the term propeller heads for whizzo coders when I worked for a large computer manufacturer.
I don't know about boffin, but my logic lecturer at Uni was as nutty as a fruit cake.
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
WW2 slang for a scientist or engineer in R&D - RAE Farnborough, the radar developers at TRE, operational research in the navy, physiologists studying life support mechanics in aircraft and subs, and so on. Civilian, not uniformed. Overtones of strangeness/nerdiness/incomprehensible brainpower but also respect (when they came up with the goods).
But consider that one of the classic boffin images was Prof Peabody in the Eagle.
Carried on into postwar usage and fossilised into a calcified cyst in the brains of tabloid journalists.
See Francis Spufford's "Backroom Boys". Interesting combination of eccentric and practical. And with an alarming tendency to know something about everything?
And with an alarming tendency to know something about everything. That describes many on PB.
Boffin was military slang, though, was it not ? Denoted their appreciation of the practical use of the 'backroom boys', combined with the military mild contempt for the non-combatant.
Along with ignorance of exactly what it was that they were doing.
The latter survives.
I've posted a 1940s image of Boffins elsewhere in the thread (from The Small Back Room) which is precisely as you describe.
Post-war I imagine much the same image, but Richard Wattis is behind them looking concerned about budget. Or possibly St Trinians. But he is definitely present.
Go to the poll of polls. Starting in 2022, draw a trend line through labour and conservative ratings and get back to me about trends. FYI, one poll is not a trend
Im sort of with BJO on this (the trend, not the rest of his ideological apparatus). There is I think a tightening between the blocs, and a decline in Labour favourability, that’s being hidden by the Reform rise.
I am.just not seeing it the poll of polls. They regularly undulate back and forth. It would take a more decisive shift for me to call it. I guess I would have to do a t-test to prove it. But eyeballing the running average of tory and labour support I would say it is overall still widening.
4th poll of the week this one shows a 3% drop in Lab lead to 15 confirms the trend
Especially when there was a perceptible upblip last week, which I think got attributed to Racistdonorgate.
On that point, it's worth considering four polls BJO gleefully highlights which show a reduction in the Labour lead this week and note what their previous move was:
Pollster / this poll's lead change / previous lead change
YouGov / -6% / +1% Deltapoll / -5% / +6% More in Common / -3% / -1% R&W / -6% / +8%
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
Boffins must be holding up a test tube or conical flask to the light and, if female, must be blonde and have that 'take off the glasses and shake down your hair' nerd sexiness
Sir John Curtice is occasionally described as a psephological boffin, wears glasses and his hair looks like he's shaken it down in a hedge backwards, ergo he must possess the male version of nerd sexiness.
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
Boffins must be holding up a test tube or conical flask to the light and, if female, must be blonde and have that 'take off the glasses and shake down your hair' nerd sexiness
Sir John Curtice is occasionally described as a psephological boffin, wears glasses and his hair looks like he's shaken it down in a hedge backwards, ergo he must possess the male version of nerd sexiness.
Case closed.
He is sex, psephologically speaking. Michael Thrasher is romance
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
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.
Maybe it’s because I’m not involved with Reform at all so there’s no feedback loop, but I just don’t buy the idea they’re a force in the same way as UKIP were a decade ago. They never get any decent results in by elections; UKIP did, even if those close seconds were mocked on here by frightened future Remain voters as not being worth anything under FPTP, they told us what was going to happen at the referendum
Remember the PANIC 5% Labour lead poll a week and a bit before the 1997 election...?
No panic in 2017.
Things could only get better and the did.
2024 things can be exactly the same, but with worse austerity doesn't have the same ring to it
This hatred for the idea of defeating the Tories which inhabits the crank left truly is a thing of wonder. The Tories win more elections than not because they accept there is compromise in real life. No compromise for the crankies and thus no power and thus self-righteous whining which is all that keeps them going.
Your "they're all Tories analysis" only works if everyone to the right of Tony Benn is a "Tory". Which is pitiful more than it is laughable.
Indeed true. BJO is actively campaigning for Sunak to win and a max of two Green MPs - MPs who would completely be ignored by a returning Con government.
Just how stupid that is is utterly staggering.
BJO is campaigning for Sunak to win?
Please Explain?
I am campaigning for a positive change to politics via my wonderful new Party.
Your luke warm support for Corbyn involved how much campaigning for Labour 🥀
The simple truth is that after the election we get either a Labour PM or a Tory MP. In dismissing the Labour candidate as a Tory and endlessly ramping his hoped for demise, its clear that your preference is the Tory option.
This isn't about which party you support. You are a green. I am a Lib Dem. But give me a choice of Starmer in Number 10 or any of the Tories, and I want Starmer. Unless you want to deny it now, you would prefer a Tory. And don't say "they're both Tories". Because thats just flat-earthism.
My impression is that many people who dislike immigration are unaware what a drop in the ocean "the boats" are, by comparison with the number of people the government is allowing to come into the country legally.
If that became an election issue, it could be extremely damaging to the Tories. They are fortunate that Labour isn't really attacking them on that basis. But of course a party of the right could do so, if that party decided it had enough to gain, and little enough to lose.
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
I 'think' the term boffin relates to scientists that are rather detached from the real world (perhaps the scientist in the Simpsons, for instance). All the scientists I know and work with are not at all like that. Most are complex souls with families and hobbies the same as the rest of the population.
Of course the really good profs can be a bit extreme. To make it in academia you often need to put in a lot of out of hours work (evenings and weekends writing grants, papers etc). Those who are really driven excel at doing this and reach the top. They often find it hard to retire, as they have less outside interests. But even for them, most are thoroughly grounded.
I once had a conversation with a lay person (a neighbour) about creativity. I told her I think the scientists are some of the most creative people I know. New discoveries don't just happen.
Not sure of the boffin definition, but the description of academia and the types of academic is spot on.
And I (and Turbo it seems) are not boffins by that defintion. I'm reluctant to do work out of hours and I'll retire the moment I hit pension age, as long as Thames Water hasn't wiped out the USS by then
The journalistic counterpoint to the boffin being, I think, the Luvvie.
Both of which these days are considered woke though. Not sure if there's a journospeak word for the types who weren't good at either arts or sciences at school but excelled in PE. We don't use "Jocks" in British English.
There is "pundit" of course, and "bean counter".
So, in expert/boss world there is:
- Boffins: scientists of some description (can be any sort of scientist in tabloid speak) - Luvvies: people successful in one or more of the arts - Pundits: journalists or sports commentators - Bean counters: accountants or Treasury officials - Legal eagles / "hotshot" lawyers: less used but occasionally appears for law experts - Quacks: doctor - Bosses: heads of industry organisations or large businesses (usually prefixed - see City bosses, Retail bosses, Water company bosses)
EDIT: I forgot "spooks". Any other tabloid favourites?
- Hacks: journalists on other papers - Investigative reporters: journalists on this paper - Celebs: people you've probably never heard of - Fat cats: any director of a large company - Gurus: people who claim to know a little bit more than the writer - Cowboys: that cheap builder you shouldn't have used - Sex-pests: male Tory MPs
Remember the PANIC 5% Labour lead poll a week and a bit before the 1997 election...?
No panic in 2017.
Things could only get better and the did.
2024 things can be exactly the same, but with worse austerity doesn't have the same ring to it
This hatred for the idea of defeating the Tories which inhabits the crank left truly is a thing of wonder. The Tories win more elections than not because they accept there is compromise in real life. No compromise for the crankies and thus no power and thus self-righteous whining which is all that keeps them going.
Your "they're all Tories analysis" only works if everyone to the right of Tony Benn is a "Tory". Which is pitiful more than it is laughable.
Indeed true. BJO is actively campaigning for Sunak to win and a max of two Green MPs - MPs who would completely be ignored by a returning Con government.
Just how stupid that is is utterly staggering.
BJO is campaigning for Sunak to win?
Please Explain?
I am campaigning for a positive change to politics via my wonderful new Party.
Your luke warm support for Corbyn involved how much campaigning for Labour 🥀
Corbyn did manage to get a lot of people to vote for him, but the key factor is, he galvanised a lot of people to vote against him, this time round, Starmer doesn't excite voters, but doesn't repel them either, probably enough to get over the line
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
I 'think' the term boffin relates to scientists that are rather detached from the real world (perhaps the scientist in the Simpsons, for instance). All the scientists I know and work with are not at all like that. Most are complex souls with families and hobbies the same as the rest of the population.
Of course the really good profs can be a bit extreme. To make it in academia you often need to put in a lot of out of hours work (evenings and weekends writing grants, papers etc). Those who are really driven excel at doing this and reach the top. They often find it hard to retire, as they have less outside interests. But even for them, most are thoroughly grounded.
I once had a conversation with a lay person (a neighbour) about creativity. I told her I think the scientists are some of the most creative people I know. New discoveries don't just happen.
Not sure of the boffin definition, but the description of academia and the types of academic is spot on.
And I (and Turbo it seems) are not boffins by that defintion. I'm reluctant to do work out of hours and I'll retire the moment I hit pension age, as long as Thames Water hasn't wiped out the USS by then
The journalistic counterpoint to the boffin being, I think, the Luvvie.
Both of which these days are considered woke though. Not sure if there's a journospeak word for the types who weren't good at either arts or sciences at school but excelled in PE. We don't use "Jocks" in British English.
There is "pundit" of course, and "bean counter".
So, in expert/boss world there is:
- Boffins: scientists of some description (can be any sort of scientist in tabloid speak) - Luvvies: people successful in one or more of the arts - Pundits: journalists or sports commentators - Bean counters: accountants or Treasury officials - Legal eagles / "hotshot" lawyers: less used but occasionally appears for law experts - Quacks: doctor - Bosses: heads of industry organisations or large businesses (usually prefixed - see City bosses, Retail bosses, Water company bosses)
EDIT: I forgot "spooks". Any other tabloid favourites?
We used the term propeller heads for whizzo coders when I worked for a large computer manufacturer.
I don't know about boffin, but my logic lecturer at Uni was as nutty as a fruit cake.
My impression is that many people who dislike immigration are unaware what a drop in the ocean "the boats" are, by comparison with the number of people the government is allowing to come into the country legally.
If that became an election issue, it could be extremely damaging to the Tories. They are fortunate that Labour isn't really attacking them on that basis. But of course a party of the right could do so, if that party decided it had enough to gain, and little enough to lose.
Labour simply need to quote the net migration figure and say the Tories have failed. Regardless of any bleating about "Labour have no plan" it is brutally clear that the Tory plan has failed.
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
Boffins must be holding up a test tube or conical flask to the light and, if female, must be blonde and have that 'take off the glasses and shake down your hair' nerd sexiness
Sir John Curtice is occasionally described as a psephological boffin, wears glasses and his hair looks like he's shaken it down in a hedge backwards, ergo he must possess the male version of nerd sexiness.
Case closed.
He is sex, psephologically speaking. Michael Thrasher is romance
Remember the PANIC 5% Labour lead poll a week and a bit before the 1997 election...?
No panic in 2017.
Things could only get better and the did.
2024 things can be exactly the same, but with worse austerity doesn't have the same ring to it
This hatred for the idea of defeating the Tories which inhabits the crank left truly is a thing of wonder. The Tories win more elections than not because they accept there is compromise in real life. No compromise for the crankies and thus no power and thus self-righteous whining which is all that keeps them going.
Your "they're all Tories analysis" only works if everyone to the right of Tony Benn is a "Tory". Which is pitiful more than it is laughable.
Indeed true. BJO is actively campaigning for Sunak to win and a max of two Green MPs - MPs who would completely be ignored by a returning Con government.
Just how stupid that is is utterly staggering.
BJO is campaigning for Sunak to win?
Please Explain?
I am campaigning for a positive change to politics via my wonderful new Party.
Your luke warm support for Corbyn involved how much campaigning for Labour 🥀
I didn't spend every post trying to undermine Corbyn as you do with Starmer.
I'd have a lot more respect for you if you extolled the virtues of your wonderful new party*, if you actually posted positively on them instead of constantly sniping at Starmer. Also all that 'Red Tory' stuff is absolute nonsense, of course.
Ok we get it already: you don't like Starmer! Now please move on.
(*Whom I could potentially be persuaded to vote for btw.)
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
I 'think' the term boffin relates to scientists that are rather detached from the real world (perhaps the scientist in the Simpsons, for instance). All the scientists I know and work with are not at all like that. Most are complex souls with families and hobbies the same as the rest of the population.
Of course the really good profs can be a bit extreme. To make it in academia you often need to put in a lot of out of hours work (evenings and weekends writing grants, papers etc). Those who are really driven excel at doing this and reach the top. They often find it hard to retire, as they have less outside interests. But even for them, most are thoroughly grounded.
I once had a conversation with a lay person (a neighbour) about creativity. I told her I think the scientists are some of the most creative people I know. New discoveries don't just happen.
Not sure of the boffin definition, but the description of academia and the types of academic is spot on.
And I (and Turbo it seems) are not boffins by that defintion. I'm reluctant to do work out of hours and I'll retire the moment I hit pension age, as long as Thames Water hasn't wiped out the USS by then
The journalistic counterpoint to the boffin being, I think, the Luvvie.
Both of which these days are considered woke though. Not sure if there's a journospeak word for the types who weren't good at either arts or sciences at school but excelled in PE. We don't use "Jocks" in British English.
There is "pundit" of course, and "bean counter".
So, in expert/boss world there is:
- Boffins: scientists of some description (can be any sort of scientist in tabloid speak) - Luvvies: people successful in one or more of the arts - Pundits: journalists or sports commentators - Bean counters: accountants or Treasury officials - Legal eagles / "hotshot" lawyers: less used but occasionally appears for law experts - Quacks: doctor - Bosses: heads of industry organisations or large businesses (usually prefixed - see City bosses, Retail bosses, Water company bosses)
EDIT: I forgot "spooks". Any other tabloid favourites?
Boffins - implications of hands on, physical expertise. The ordinary boffin is typically found in a lab, pipe in mouth, pipetting colourful solutions together.
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
No
Boffins, if they wear a lab coat at all, would wear brown.
Too much mess, explosion and grime for white to be practical. They're (we're) not surgeons.
Brown coat, tweed jacket, probably smoking a pipe to help them think.
One of the boffins in Spufford's book was a morris dancer.
But I’m right - test it for yourself, like a proper boffin, on Google images. White coats everywhere
A true boffin wouldn't lower themselves to secondary sources.
Interestingly, Midjourney cleaves more to @Scott_xP’s perception of a boffin (though it doesn’t agree entirely). It conceives men in white shirt sleeves and brown waistcoats hunched over desks, somewhat cyberpunk
This just goes to show how rubbish AI is. I don’t know why people bang on about it
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
No
Boffins, if they wear a lab coat at all, would wear brown.
That is woodwork teachers
I always think of Arthur English in Are You Being Served?.
I probably qualify as a “boffin” (engineer, government lab etc) and my lab coat is black anti static material. I don’t work with chemicals and the hardier materials tend to be in dark colours. Biochemists and Chemical Engineers wear white so they can see when they’ve spilled something on them so they don’t touch it. Electrical and Mechanical Engineers tend to be the ones in black or brown.
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.
I thought you were a boffin?
Definitely not. I'm a scientician
Ah ok. So this begs the question, what is a boffin? Eg my brother is a Maths Prof. Is he a boffin? I've always thought so but it's only now, because of this exchange, that I'm giving it some proper thought.
I 'think' the term boffin relates to scientists that are rather detached from the real world (perhaps the scientist in the Simpsons, for instance). All the scientists I know and work with are not at all like that. Most are complex souls with families and hobbies the same as the rest of the population.
Of course the really good profs can be a bit extreme. To make it in academia you often need to put in a lot of out of hours work (evenings and weekends writing grants, papers etc). Those who are really driven excel at doing this and reach the top. They often find it hard to retire, as they have less outside interests. But even for them, most are thoroughly grounded.
I once had a conversation with a lay person (a neighbour) about creativity. I told her I think the scientists are some of the most creative people I know. New discoveries don't just happen.
Not sure of the boffin definition, but the description of academia and the types of academic is spot on.
And I (and Turbo it seems) are not boffins by that defintion. I'm reluctant to do work out of hours and I'll retire the moment I hit pension age, as long as Thames Water hasn't wiped out the USS by then
The journalistic counterpoint to the boffin being, I think, the Luvvie.
Both of which these days are considered woke though. Not sure if there's a journospeak word for the types who weren't good at either arts or sciences at school but excelled in PE. We don't use "Jocks" in British English.
There is "pundit" of course, and "bean counter".
So, in expert/boss world there is:
- Boffins: scientists of some description (can be any sort of scientist in tabloid speak) - Luvvies: people successful in one or more of the arts - Pundits: journalists or sports commentators - Bean counters: accountants or Treasury officials - Legal eagles / "hotshot" lawyers: less used but occasionally appears for law experts - Quacks: doctor - Bosses: heads of industry organisations or large businesses (usually prefixed - see City bosses, Retail bosses, Water company bosses)
EDIT: I forgot "spooks". Any other tabloid favourites?
We used the term propeller heads for whizzo coders when I worked for a large computer manufacturer.
I don't know about boffin, but my logic lecturer at Uni was as nutty as a fruit cake.
A term coined in the US in the 1980s, apparently.
The timing is spot on and needless to say it was a US corporation.
My impression is that many people who dislike immigration are unaware what a drop in the ocean "the boats" are, by comparison with the number of people the government is allowing to come into the country legally.
If that became an election issue, it could be extremely damaging to the Tories. They are fortunate that Labour isn't really attacking them on that basis. But of course a party of the right could do so, if that party decided it had enough to gain, and little enough to lose.
My impression is that many people who dislike immigration are unaware what a drop in the ocean "the boats" are, by comparison with the number of people the government is allowing to come into the country legally.
If that became an election issue, it could be extremely damaging to the Tories. They are fortunate that Labour isn't really attacking them on that basis. But of course a party of the right could do so, if that party decided it had enough to gain, and little enough to lose.
Labour simply need to quote the net migration figure and say the Tories have failed. Regardless of any bleating about "Labour have no plan" it is brutally clear that the Tory plan has failed.
On Monday there was a half hour party political broadcast on the BBC to that effect, called Panorama
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
No
Boffins, if they wear a lab coat at all, would wear brown.
That is woodwork teachers
I always think of Arthur English in Are You Being Served?.
I probably qualify as a “boffin” (engineer, government lab etc) and my lab coat is black anti static material. I don’t work with chemicals and the hardier materials tend to be in dark colours. Biochemists and Chemical Engineers wear white so they can see when they’ve spilled something on them so they don’t touch it. Electrical and Mechanical Engineers tend to be the ones in black or brown.
Definitely not a boffin. A boffin is someone who does something in STEM, who ALSO has occasion to wear a white coat at work
The white coat is indispensable. Picture a boffin in your mind. See? White coat
No
Boffins, if they wear a lab coat at all, would wear brown.
That is woodwork teachers
I always think of Arthur English in Are You Being Served?.
I probably qualify as a “boffin” (engineer, government lab etc) and my lab coat is black anti static material. I don’t work with chemicals and the hardier materials tend to be in dark colours. Biochemists and Chemical Engineers wear white so they can see when they’ve spilled something on them so they don’t touch it. Electrical and Mechanical Engineers tend to be the ones in black or brown.
Never ask a boffin about fashion.....
We’re not a fashionable office. Or at least we weren’t until influencers started dressing like they were about to go hoofing up a hill. Now we look very on trend.
O/T I can't remember which PBer suggested doing this but thanks to whoever it was:
I challenged Wessex Water over a £935 water bill and the upshot is, although the leak was on our side (pipe to garden tap), they have unbelievably given us a £1280 leakage allowance! So we're now £320 in credit. Quite extraordinary.
Go to the poll of polls. Starting in 2022, draw a trend line through labour and conservative ratings and get back to me about trends. FYI, one poll is not a trend
Im sort of with BJO on this (the trend, not the rest of his ideological apparatus). There is I think a tightening between the blocs, and a decline in Labour favourability, that’s being hidden by the Reform rise.
I am.just not seeing it the poll of polls. They regularly undulate back and forth. It would take a more decisive shift for me to call it. I guess I would have to do a t-test to prove it. But eyeballing the running average of tory and labour support I would say it is overall still widening.
4th poll of the week this one shows a 3% drop in Lab lead to 15 confirms the trend
Especially when there was a perceptible upblip last week, which I think got attributed to Racistdonorgate.
On that point, it's worth considering four polls BJO gleefully highlights which show a reduction in the Labour lead this week and note what their previous move was:
Pollster / this poll's lead change / previous lead change
YouGov / -6% / +1% Deltapoll / -5% / +6% More in Common / -3% / -1% R&W / -6% / +8%
Average -5% this poll, +3.5% last poll.
As far as YouGov is concerned it’s a decent dip in support, as the poll three weeks ago was a dip of a few points as well. It’s their lowest Labour score since 2022, so not just up one week/down the next and balancing out
Strange thing you said the other day, that I was desperately searching for a reason to vote Tory. I am not a Tory, and only voted for them in 2019 to Get Brexit Done. I’m unlikely to be voting for them next time, and haven’t praised any of their policies, campaign adverts or any individual MP they have.
You may try to label me as a Boris fan, but even there I only argue that he is the most popular choice of 2019 Tories according to polling, which would be true whether I liked him or not, and that they’d be better off had they kept him in charge. I don’t think you’d find anything from me saying he was a fantastic leader, this or that was a tremendous policy, he has a great vision for the country etc, just that he was charismatic and that goes further than dry politico’s care to admit… usually because they aren’t charismatic themselves, so don’t value its importance
'Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, said on Thursday that [special administration] was a “long way off” but did not rule out the possibility.
Weston said the company had £2.4bn of funds it could draw on, which would last until next May or June. “There is a chance that somewhere down the stream you might get to a specific special administration outcome but there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge.”'
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
'Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, said on Thursday that [special administration] was a “long way off” but did not rule out the possibility.
Weston said the company had £2.4bn of funds it could draw on, which would last until next May or June. “There is a chance that somewhere down the stream you might get to a specific special administration outcome but there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge.”'
'Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, said on Thursday that [special administration] was a “long way off” but did not rule out the possibility.
Weston said the company had £2.4bn of funds it could draw on, which would last until next May or June. “There is a chance that somewhere down the stream you might get to a specific special administration outcome but there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge.”'
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
Would not surprise me. There was a very large concentration in a rather small town. The (deliberately misleadingly named) Telecommunications Research Establishment was originally at Worth Matravers in Dorset but had to move there very suddenly in the middle of the war. At least one school, quite a few former hydrotherapy/spa hotels, etc., were taken over, and they are still there (as part of Qinetiq). And they had a great deal to do with the RAF who tended to be quite visible and audible during the war.
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.
Maybe it’s because I’m not involved with Reform at all so there’s no feedback loop, but I just don’t buy the idea they’re a force in the same way as UKIP were a decade ago. They never get any decent results in by elections; UKIP did, even if those close seconds were mocked on here by frightened future Remain voters as not being worth anything under FPTP, they told us what was going to happen at the referendum
Yes, I think UKIP had around 500 council seats by 2015. Reform has about six. UKIP would have won 30-40% in seats like Kingswood and Wellingborough, and 20-30% in Rochdale, in by election conditions.
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
'Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, said on Thursday that [special administration] was a “long way off” but did not rule out the possibility.
Weston said the company had £2.4bn of funds it could draw on, which would last until next May or June. “There is a chance that somewhere down the stream you might get to a specific special administration outcome but there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge.”'
What this country desperately needs is more boffins. eg we obviously require “Water Boffins” - to fix the whole mess there. “Britain’s Armada of Water Boffins” - just by writing that phrase down we’re halfway to solving the sewage crisis
Fuck all this American “tsar” nonsense. Bring back The Boffin
“Britain’s Top Small Boat Boffin” would sort out the small boat problem over a weekend. In Great Malvern or maybe Malvern Spa. Wearing a white coat
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 cant have a rational debate about anything in the public sphere now. Thats why we are in the state we are in.
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
Look at all those white coats.
Oh, wait...
Those are boffins off duty. Who needs an off duty boffin?
No one ever says “find me a chilaxing boffin”, do they??
Oooh. ChatGPT is somewhere in the middle. It thinks a boffin wears an off white lab coat AND a brown waistcoat
Spectacles, mad hair and big forehead are in every image
On the subject of AI, I watched 2010 last night. Impressively prescient on the subject of AI, given it was written in (I think) the 60s and the film was made in the 80s.
Also, a brilliant film. Definitely in my top ten. Arguably better than 2001.
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.
Maybe it’s because I’m not involved with Reform at all so there’s no feedback loop, but I just don’t buy the idea they’re a force in the same way as UKIP were a decade ago. They never get any decent results in by elections; UKIP did, even if those close seconds were mocked on here by frightened future Remain voters as not being worth anything under FPTP, they told us what was going to happen at the referendum
Yes, I think UKIP had around 500 council seats by 2015. Reform has about six. UKIP would have won 30-40% in seats like Kingswood and Wellingborough, and 20-30% in Rochdale, in by election conditions.
Reform has 9 as of writing, 3 up in May They are going to struggle to campaign outside very selected seats
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
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.
Maybe it’s because I’m not involved with Reform at all so there’s no feedback loop, but I just don’t buy the idea they’re a force in the same way as UKIP were a decade ago. They never get any decent results in by elections; UKIP did, even if those close seconds were mocked on here by frightened future Remain voters as not being worth anything under FPTP, they told us what was going to happen at the referendum
Yes, I think UKIP had around 500 council seats by 2015. Reform has about six. UKIP would have won 30-40% in seats like Kingswood and Wellingborough, and 20-30% in Rochdale, in by election conditions.
Reform has 9 as of writing, 3 up in May They are going to struggle to campaign outside very selected seats
They also have 6 associated councillors in 'Reform Derby' a local party offshoot including Derby's Mayor that has a TUV style tie in with them
Hey BJO, don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate Starmer Fans will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a Parliamentary constituency with this puppy! We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, leaflets, dodgy bar charts...
Oooh. ChatGPT is somewhere in the middle. It thinks a boffin wears an off white lab coat AND a brown waistcoat
Spectacles, mad hair and big forehead are in every image
On the subject of AI, I watched 2010 last night. Impressively prescient on the subject of AI, given it was written in (I think) the 60s and the film was made in the 80s.
Also, a brilliant film. Definitely in my top ten. Arguably better than 2001.
The 1960s book was 2001 which as you note got its own film. 2010 (book) came a lot later - on checking, 1982. But that's a mere point of PB pedantry.
'Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, said on Thursday that [special administration] was a “long way off” but did not rule out the possibility.
Weston said the company had £2.4bn of funds it could draw on, which would last until next May or June. “There is a chance that somewhere down the stream you might get to a specific special administration outcome but there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge.”'
He clearly has not worked out yet its supposed to go down the bloody pipes.
'Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, said on Thursday that [special administration] was a “long way off” but did not rule out the possibility.
Weston said the company had £2.4bn of funds it could draw on, which would last until next May or June. “There is a chance that somewhere down the stream you might get to a specific special administration outcome but there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge.”'
He clearly has not worked out yet its supposed to go down the bloody pipes.
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
I've seen a prototype at the little museum in Rugby (recogniseable from the 6 rather than 8 little nooks IIRC).
And on tweeds, see also Francis Crick. Who was IIRC an Operational Research boffin in WW2. (We'll let off James Watson as not being British: no detriment imputed to him, but he was therefore not qualified to be a boffin.)
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
I have no idea what a “cavity magnetron” is, but it sounds brilliant and ONLY a boffin could invent it, and give it that name
In fact you’d need lots. “In the desperate quest for the Cavity Magnetron, Britain’s Army of Off Duty Boffins has been summoned to Malvern Wells. We spoke to Top Boffin…” etc etc
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
I've seen a prototype at the little museum in Rugby (recogniseable from the 6 rather than 8 little nooks IIRC).
And on tweeds, see also Francis Crick. Who was IIRC an Operational Research boffin in WW2. (We'll let off James Watson as not being British: no detriment imputed to him, but he was therefore not qualified to be a boffin.)
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
I have no idea what a “cavity magnetron” is, but it sounds brilliant and ONLY a boffin could invent it, and give it that name
In fact you’d need lots. “In the desperate quest for the Cavity Magnetron, Britain’s Army of Off Duty Boffins has been summoned to Malvern Wells. We spoke to Top Boffin…” etc etc
You'll have one in your microwave oven. But it was originally used for radar and TRE Malvern was central to that development even if the CM was originated (I think?) in a university.
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
I've seen a prototype at the little museum in Rugby (recogniseable from the 6 rather than 8 little nooks IIRC).
And on tweeds, see also Francis Crick. Who was IIRC an Operational Research boffin in WW2. (We'll let off James Watson as not being British: no detriment imputed to him, but he was therefore not qualified to be a boffin.)
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 cant have a rational debate about anything in the public sphere now. Thats why we are in the state we are in.
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
I've seen a prototype at the little museum in Rugby (recogniseable from the 6 rather than 8 little nooks IIRC).
And on tweeds, see also Francis Crick. Who was IIRC an Operational Research boffin in WW2. (We'll let off James Watson as not being British: no detriment imputed to him, but he was therefore not qualified to be a boffin.)
The very idea of a not-British boffin is, frankly, laughable
It's like placental and marsupial cats. Sort of do the same function but different in detail. American boffin-analogues had bow ties, and shirt-pocket protectors, and slide rules in the shirt pocket too. Vide Wolfe The Right Stuff.
Comments
Both of which these days are considered woke though. Not sure if there's a journospeak word for the types who weren't good at either arts or sciences at school but excelled in PE. We don't use "Jocks" in British English.
There is "pundit" of course, and "bean counter".
So, in expert/boss world there is:
- Boffins: scientists of some description (can be any sort of scientist in tabloid speak)
- Luvvies: people successful in one or more of the arts
- Pundits: journalists or sports commentators
- Bean counters: accountants or Treasury officials
- Legal eagles / "hotshot" lawyers: less used but occasionally appears for law experts
- Quacks: doctor
- Bosses: heads of industry organisations or large businesses (usually prefixed - see City bosses, Retail bosses, Water company bosses)
EDIT: I forgot "spooks". Any other tabloid favourites?
That describes many on PB.
Boffins, if they wear a lab coat at all, would wear brown.
Brown coat, tweed jacket, probably smoking a pipe to help them think.
One of the boffins in Spufford's book was a morris dancer.
Denoted their appreciation of the practical use of the 'backroom boys', combined with the military mild contempt for the non-combatant.
Along with ignorance of exactly what it was that they were doing.
The latter survives.
Please Explain?
I am campaigning for a positive change to politics via my wonderful new Party.
Your luke warm support for Corbyn involved how much campaigning for Labour 🥀
This is quite simple:
(1) People can be tolerant of quite high legal migration, provided there are rules and it is controlled.
(2) People are not tolerant of illegal migration across the Channel to sneak around them with the aid & abetment of organised criminals, and the giant loopholes we have in our asylum process, and want it stopped.
It presses at two fundamentally very British things of fair play and waiting your turn.
Four show guys in white coats, the fifth is a footballer called Ruud Boffin
I’m right, @Scott_xP is wrong, this scenario is not unprecedented
I don't know about boffin, but my logic lecturer at Uni was as nutty as a fruit cake.
Post-war I imagine much the same image, but Richard Wattis is behind them looking concerned about budget. Or possibly St Trinians. But he is definitely present.
Pollster / this poll's lead change / previous lead change
YouGov / -6% / +1%
Deltapoll / -5% / +6%
More in Common / -3% / -1%
R&W / -6% / +8%
Average -5% this poll, +3.5% last poll.
Case closed.
Also, some boffins, confusingly, were military.
(Frank Whittle)
What you have managed to confirm is that imaginary boffins wear white coats. Well done.
As we have established, real boffins wear brown.
QED
This isn't about which party you support. You are a green. I am a Lib Dem. But give me a choice of Starmer in Number 10 or any of the Tories, and I want Starmer. Unless you want to deny it now, you would prefer a Tory. And don't say "they're both Tories". Because thats just flat-earthism.
If that became an election issue, it could be extremely damaging to the Tories. They are fortunate that Labour isn't really attacking them on that basis. But of course a party of the right could do so, if that party decided it had enough to gain, and little enough to lose.
- Investigative reporters: journalists on this paper
- Celebs: people you've probably never heard of
- Fat cats: any director of a large company
- Gurus: people who claim to know a little bit more than the writer
- Cowboys: that cheap builder you shouldn't have used
- Sex-pests: male Tory MPs
Why? Because it’s a really brilliant word, that is enjoyable to say
Boffin!
It also sounds faintly naughty, which sexes up the concept. Boffins be boffin’ etc
Boffins should own their boffinry
It’s even better when used in the formula “Britain’s top boffins”. Journalism doesn’t get more enjoyable to write and read than that
https://x.com/nffc/status/1773315435422728644?s=61
I'd have a lot more respect for you if you extolled the virtues of your wonderful new party*, if you actually posted positively on them instead of constantly sniping at Starmer. Also all that 'Red Tory' stuff is absolute nonsense, of course.
Ok we get it already: you don't like Starmer! Now please move on.
(*Whom I could potentially be persuaded to vote for btw.)
This just goes to show how rubbish AI is. I don’t know why people bang on about it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001xpqk/panorama-immigration-the-uks-record-rise
Spectacles, mad hair and big forehead are in every image
I challenged Wessex Water over a £935 water bill and the upshot is, although the leak was on our side (pipe to garden tap), they have unbelievably given us a £1280 leakage allowance! So we're now £320 in credit. Quite extraordinary.
An equivalent in another field being Mozart and Beethoven's impact on the image of the composer.
See this classic P&P film about a boffin, 1949.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041886/
And, specially for our Brexieteers and Tories,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMmdHmkVIJc
Tweeds abound.
Strange thing you said the other day, that I was desperately searching for a reason to vote Tory. I am not a Tory, and only voted for them in 2019 to Get Brexit Done. I’m unlikely to be voting for them next time, and haven’t praised any of their policies, campaign adverts or any individual MP they have.
You may try to label me as a Boris fan, but even there I only argue that he is the most popular choice of 2019 Tories according to polling, which would be true whether I liked him or not, and that they’d be better off had they kept him in charge. I don’t think you’d find anything from me saying he was a fantastic leader, this or that was a tremendous policy, he has a great vision for the country etc, just that he was charismatic and that goes further than dry politico’s care to admit… usually because they aren’t charismatic themselves, so don’t value its importance
'Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, said on Thursday that [special administration] was a “long way off” but did not rule out the possibility.
Weston said the company had £2.4bn of funds it could draw on, which would last until next May or June. “There is a chance that somewhere down the stream you might get to a specific special administration outcome but there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge.”'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boffin
It was cemented into its present usage in World War 2, referencing radar researchers in the Malverns. That’s brilliant. If I had to put a boffin anywhere, geographically, it would be the Malverns - slightly eccentric, slightly quaint, very British
I saw the Jam play at Malvern Winter Gardens. Another time, another time
Look at all those white coats.
Oh, wait...
Fuck all this American “tsar” nonsense. Bring back The Boffin
“Britain’s Top Small Boat Boffin” would sort out the small boat problem over a weekend. In Great Malvern or maybe Malvern Spa. Wearing a white coat
No one ever says “find me a chilaxing boffin”, do they??
Also, a brilliant film. Definitely in my top ten. Arguably better than 2001.
They are going to struggle to campaign outside very selected seats
Not a single policy, just vibes and platitudes.
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/cavity-magnetron
And on tweeds, see also Francis Crick. Who was IIRC an Operational Research boffin in WW2. (We'll let off James Watson as not being British: no detriment imputed to him, but he was therefore not qualified to be a boffin.)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/being-objectionable-is-in-his-dna-james-watson-derides-former-colleagues-szhlbtctl
I have no idea what a “cavity magnetron” is, but it sounds brilliant and ONLY a boffin could invent it, and give it that name
In fact you’d need lots. “In the desperate quest for the Cavity Magnetron, Britain’s Army of Off Duty Boffins has been summoned to Malvern Wells. We spoke to Top Boffin…” etc etc
£25 to charity if Starmer beats Corbyn's 12.8m votes and £25 if he beats Corbyn's 40%?
https://youtu.be/oQfAZVsz6KM?feature=shared