The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
I think he's suggesting that if we'd stayed in the EU, we'd have had lots of white European immigrants and could have been a superpower like the US.
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
Think what has happened. The government locked down the country preventing people from going to work, they deployed the mrna, they allowed millions to settle in the country overwhelming public services, they began to implement net zero signifying the total destruction of the economy, they sent billions to Ukraine whilst preventing a peace deal leading to a great loss of life amongst the young and destabilising the West.
Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?
Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.
I'm not really sure how I should vote.
I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.
So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.
I'll go with my gut on the day.
I too am in a Tory safe seat with Lab second. But if they win here they have a 250 seat majority already. Does 251 really make things better for them?
So I shall choose between LD or Green, who won't win.
My choice is between the incumbent SNP member and a Labour candidate. Since the SNP member was elected I've heard zero, zilch, nadda from them. No sign of a local surgery, no comms at all. The only leaflet I've had from the Labour candidate has been a 50/50 mix of NOT THE SNP and GAZA.
So for the first time in my life I'm considering not voting.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
Indeed. This isn't a normal NI unionist constituency as is clear from its history. The last unionist MP exited the party in protest at alliance with the Tories and won (in 2010!). Ultimately, everyday life has relative normalcy compared to other nearby constituencies - by which I mean, the average resident is more socioeconomically upscale, and the Catholic minority encounters less sectarianism and one even hears of "mixed marriages".
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
Think what has happened. The government locked down the country preventing people from going to work, they deployed the mrna, they allowed millions to settle in the country overwhelming public services, they began to implement net zero signifying the total destruction of the economy, they sent billions to Ukraine whilst preventing a peace deal leading to a great loss of life amongst the young and destabilising the West.
The mrna you say? Please, tell us more.
You need to ask that of the few, plucky, remaining BA pilots I think.
Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?
Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.
Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.
Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
It was suggested at one stage that German be adopted as an (or the) official language of the US, so there were definitely some differences in language that persisted after immigration from different countries in Europe.
Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?
Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.
Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.
Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.
If they can sit in the "hated" Stormont, they can sit in Westminster.
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commentet here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
"Anglo-Saxon" has more than one meaning, depending what is meant by it.
In the United States, "WASP" is (or rather was) NOT limited to White Protestants of English heritage. Instead, included any White Protestant of northwest Euro ethnicity.
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
But are Tories going to get 30% of the vote? I think 25% is much more likely, and at that level anything could happen to the spread.
What percentage splits for reform, and where, is going to be the difference between a Major 1997 result and the circa 60 seats the polls are currently predicting. There was no Reform in 1997, which is why this time is different (Yes, I know there was a referendum party, but its voters were quite different).
Don't successful SF candidates get offices in Westminster/Portcullis House? I've bumped (literally) into Gerry Adams before in Parliament Square.
They do, and are entitled to the same payments for political support and to offer their staff access to the Palace. A sweetener as part of one of those endless renegotiations of the peace deals during the Blair years.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
In the USA it may originally have meant that.Now "Anglo" is often used to mean any white person, whatever their heritage, even Jewish.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
It was suggested at one stage that German be adopted as an (or the) official language of the US, so there were definitely some differences in language that persisted after immigration from different countries in Europe.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
I don't understand the appeal of Alliance, who seem like the left wing of the Lib Dems with knobs on.
What's not to like about the left wing of the LibDems with knobs on?
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
Think what has happened. The government locked down the country preventing people from going to work, they deployed the mrna, they allowed millions to settle in the country overwhelming public services, they began to implement net zero signifying the total destruction of the economy, they sent billions to Ukraine whilst preventing a peace deal leading to a great loss of life amongst the young and destabilising the West.
The mrna you say? Please, tell us more.
You need to ask that of the few, plucky, remaining BA pilots I think.
the u.s. regulator had to change the heart issue boundaries because too many pilots were being grounded.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
Indeed. This isn't a normal NI unionist constituency as is clear from its history. The last unionist MP exited the party in protest at alliance with the Tories and won (in 2010!). Ultimately, everyday life has relative normalcy compared to other nearby constituencies - by which I mean, the average resident is more socioeconomically upscale, and the Catholic minority encounters less sectarianism and one even hears of "mixed marriages".
Will voters see Farry (APNI) or Easton (ind) as the true successor to Lady Harmon (ind)? I would like to think that's Farry. The seat hasn't elected a hardline unionist since 1997.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
It was suggested at one stage that German be adopted as an (or the) official language of the US, so there were definitely some differences in language that persisted after immigration from different countries in Europe.
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
The Tories are polling so much worse now than they were in 1997. The last time they polled >30% was a 31% in a Savanta poll with fieldwork of 23-25 June 2023.
Before the 1997 GE the Tories polled as high as 34% a couple of times, a few 33%, lots of 32% and 31% scores. And they still only got 30.7%. And we all know that the pre-1997 polling was flawed because it lacked the spiral of silence adjustment.
Now, sure, the polls could be wrong. They're certainly not infallible. But the polling numbers really are that bad for the Tories and so I think, unless something changes, it really could happen. And, after Truss, after everything else, isn't the record of this Tory government a lot worse than Major's?
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
In the USA it may originally have meant that.Now "Anglo" is often used to mean any white person, whatever their heritage, even Jewish.
Usually "Anglo" in USA today = English speaking, sometimes including non-White people.
Generally in context of Anglo contrasted with Hispanic . . . who may actually know little or no Spanish.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.
Just as it's what those 750 juries which convicted those subpostmasters thought is what matters. Innocent? Suicide? Bankrupt? Fuck em!
Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?
Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.
Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.
Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.
It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
Indeed. This isn't a normal NI unionist constituency as is clear from its history. The last unionist MP exited the party in protest at alliance with the Tories and won (in 2010!). Ultimately, everyday life has relative normalcy compared to other nearby constituencies - by which I mean, the average resident is more socioeconomically upscale, and the Catholic minority encounters less sectarianism and one even hears of "mixed marriages".
Will voters see Farry (APNI) or Easton (ind) as the true successor to Lady Harmon (ind)? I would like to think that's Farry. The seat hasn't elected a hardline unionist since 1997.
I think your damning statistic about UUP-DUP transfers answers your question.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.
Just as it's what those 750 juries which convicted those subpostmasters thought is what matters. Innocent? Suicide? Bankrupt? Fuck em!
I salute your indefatigablity
So are you saying we can't trust any conviction at all?
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.
It wasn't what mattered on here when the Rittenhouse verdict came in, when I was told (I quote word for word, poster and likers to remain anonymous) that "It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth".
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
I don't understand the appeal of Alliance, who seem like the left wing of the Lib Dems with knobs on.
1) “Our platform is all about 300 years of oppression and violence and how it will all be better if *we* win. And grind our enemies into the dust. 2) “Our platform is all about 300 years of oppression and violence and how it will all be better if *we* win. And grind our enemies into the dust. 3) “Our platform is about how we should all be grown up and work together to make the schools, hospitals and roads a bit better.”
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
Would be funny though, you've got to admit.
I'm looking forward to an election night Portillofest!
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.
Just as it's what those 750 juries which convicted those subpostmasters thought is what matters. Innocent? Suicide? Bankrupt? Fuck em!
I salute your indefatigablity
So are you saying we can't trust any conviction at all?
The small difference with the Trump trial and the Post Office prosecutions is that Trump hasn’t denied the facts. Just that he should have been prosecuted for doing what he did.
Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?
Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.
I'm not really sure how I should vote.
I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.
So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.
I'll go with my gut on the day.
I too am in a Tory safe seat with Lab second. But if they win here they have a 250 seat majority already. Does 251 really make things better for them?
So I shall choose between LD or Green, who won't win.
My choice is between the incumbent SNP member and a Labour candidate. Since the SNP member was elected I've heard zero, zilch, nadda from them. No sign of a local surgery, no comms at all. The only leaflet I've had from the Labour candidate has been a 50/50 mix of NOT THE SNP and GAZA.
So for the first time in my life I'm considering not voting.
I had to contact my SNP MP for help with the GP surgery in the early days of Covid, and they (well one of their staff) were really helpful, and it is the sort of thing that makes you well-disposed towards a person. So, while on a political level I'm considering a vote for Labour to defeat the SNP, on a personal level I'd be sorry to see her lose.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
It was suggested at one stage that German be adopted as an (or the) official language of the US, so there were definitely some differences in language that persisted after immigration from different countries in Europe.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.
Just as it's what those 750 juries which convicted those subpostmasters thought is what matters. Innocent? Suicide? Bankrupt? Fuck em!
I salute your indefatigablity
So are you saying we can't trust any conviction at all?
The small difference with the Trump trial and the Post Office prosecutions is that Trump hasn’t denied the facts. Just that he should have been prosecuted for doing what he did.
Trump would have been better off claiming that proto-AI took over his paperwork and intentionally fucked it up due to proto-Woke programmers.
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
Would be funny though, you've got to admit.
I'm looking forward to an election night Portillofest!
Are you an elector in Huddersfield? And did you mean an election night Portaloo-fest? (See previous comment below.)
South West Wiltshire according to EC is: Con: 33.8% Lab 40.0% LD: 10.9% Grn: 3.9% Ref: 10.7% Oth: 0.7%
Labour have 3 seats out of 98 at local level in Wiltshire, none anywhere near SWW, and they weren't even close. It would be quite amusing if they swept up such a seat despite the years of local LD work, if harsh on them.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.
Just as it's what those 750 juries which convicted those subpostmasters thought is what matters. Innocent? Suicide? Bankrupt? Fuck em!
I salute your indefatigablity
So are you saying we can't trust any conviction at all?
The small difference with the Trump trial and the Post Office prosecutions is that Trump hasn’t denied the facts. Just that he should have been prosecuted for doing what he did.
Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?
Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.
Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.
Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.
It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.
Sinn Fein under Michelle O'Neill in Northern Ireland have been making several moves to be more emollient towards the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I think this is a strategy to reassure non-sectarian voters, and more moderate Nationalists, that SF aren't aiming to create divisions. This may well be part of a long-term strategy to persuade moderate Nationalists and those in the middle that it is safe to vote for Irish Unity, because it isn't being pursued in a divisive anti-British way.
Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."
In his case, you're spoiled for choice..
Long patterns of this kind of behaviour. Fiddling with property values 20 years ago to defraud insurers and banks. He's been "at it" for a long, long time.
Yes, the civil fraud trial really seemed to have more than enough for criminal trial, and even the most generous interpretation of what came out of it was that the Trump Organisation, even if not criminal, is run like an absolute basketcase.
That the Chief Financial Officer for decades is serving his second prison sentence, the second for lying about all the lying going on in the company's finances, is a pretty good indicator of how it was run.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
I don't understand the appeal of Alliance, who seem like the left wing of the Lib Dems with knobs on.
1) “Our platform is all about 300 years of oppression and violence and how it will all be better if *we* win. And grind our enemies into the dust. 2) “Our platform is all about 300 years of oppression and violence and how it will all be better if *we* win. And grind our enemies into the dust. 3) “Our platform is about how we should all be grown up and work together to make the schools, hospitals and roads a bit better.”
Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?
Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.
Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.
Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.
It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.
Sinn Fein under Michelle O'Neill in Northern Ireland have been making several moves to be more emollient towards the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I think this is a strategy to reassure non-sectarian voters, and more moderate Nationalists, that SF aren't aiming to create divisions. This may well be part of a long-term strategy to persuade moderate Nationalists and those in the middle that it is safe to vote for Irish Unity, because it isn't being pursued in a divisive anti-British way.
Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.
I just cannot see SF being able to drop abstentionism, it would involve them taking an oath of allegiance to the crown. That of itself precludes the possibility. Even if they could get past that principled obstacle, the risk is that a sizeable portion of their activists, elected officials and voters split off to form a more hard line party. I can’t see them contemplating the risk.
66 seats even on this MRP poll (which includes tactical voting too) would NOT be an extinction level event for the Tories on any definition.
The Conservatives would still be the main Opposition, still ahead of Reform on voteshare and still ahead of the LDs on seats.
An extinction level event would be the Tories ceasing to be the main opposition with the LDs overtaking them on seats AND Reform overtaking the Tories on voteshare to become the main party of the right in the UK
Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?
Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.
Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.
Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.
It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.
Sinn Fein under Michelle O'Neill in Northern Ireland have been making several moves to be more emollient towards the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I think this is a strategy to reassure non-sectarian voters, and more moderate Nationalists, that SF aren't aiming to create divisions. This may well be part of a long-term strategy to persuade moderate Nationalists and those in the middle that it is safe to vote for Irish Unity, because it isn't being pursued in a divisive anti-British way.
Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.
I just cannot see SF being able to drop abstentionism, it would involve them taking an oath of allegiance to the crown. That of itself precludes the possibility. Even if they could get past that principled obstacle, the risk is that a sizeable portion of their activists, elected officials and voters split off to form a more hard line party. I can’t see them contemplating the risk.
Yes. I'd forgotten about the oath of allegiance.
Though one of my suggestions for Ireland to ease the path for Irish Unity is for Ireland to join the Commonwealth, so I envisage a degree of rapprochement.
@Foxy if you vote for an also-ran party (Lib or Green) in Mid Leicestershire you are simply enhancing your chances of returning a Tory MP. Fine if that’s what you want but, if not, don’t mess around in the FPP bear pit.
Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?
Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.
Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.
Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.
It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.
Sinn Fein under Michelle O'Neill in Northern Ireland have been making several moves to be more emollient towards the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I think this is a strategy to reassure non-sectarian voters, and more moderate Nationalists, that SF aren't aiming to create divisions. This may well be part of a long-term strategy to persuade moderate Nationalists and those in the middle that it is safe to vote for Irish Unity, because it isn't being pursued in a divisive anti-British way.
Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.
I just cannot see SF being able to drop abstentionism, it would involve them taking an oath of allegiance to the crown. That of itself precludes the possibility. Even if they could get past that principled obstacle, the risk is that a sizeable portion of their activists, elected officials and voters split off to form a more hard line party. I can’t see them contemplating the risk.
Can we just drop the oath of allegiance? Does it serve any purpose?
Just logged on for the first time today. Does anyone think this MRP is really going to happen?
No. I'm still expecting swingback from reform voters.
But when the last half dozen polls in a row are telling you something, and Sunak's Dad's Army BS has failed to shift the needle at all, it does suggest that what we see is what we're going to get. The only question is whether the polls are accurate or not.
At what point does the "Labour are going to win anyway, vote Reform to give the post-election Tories a message that they need to be more conservative" message cut through?
Just logged on for the first time today. Does anyone think this MRP is really going to happen?
I don't see why it couldn't be a fair reflection of what would happen if a GE took place right now.
But any swingback from Reform voters will be significant. The tactical voting effects are a bit of a mystery. Then you have turnout - will it really be that high, especially for younger people?
At what point does the "Labour are going to win anyway, vote Reform to give the post-election Tories a message that they need to be more conservative" message cut through?
Yeah nobody is flocking to vote for a democratic socialist party led by a self proclaimed socialist because the Tories aren’t Tory enough. It will be a seductive message for the semi-lobotomised headbangers in the Tory party which is practically all that’s left but I’d have said that most of the people that are receptive to it have already gone over to Farage’s cryptofash outfit.
At what point does the "Labour are going to win anyway, vote Reform to give the post-election Tories a message that they need to be more conservative" message cut through?
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.
I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven. I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.
There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.
It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.
Just as it's what those 750 juries which convicted those subpostmasters thought is what matters. Innocent? Suicide? Bankrupt? Fuck em!
I salute your indefatigablity
I am not saying that Juries always get it right. They don't, which is why we have appeals and miscarriages of justice.
But what it does mean is that Trump is a convicted felon, and that is what matters at present.
Why didn’t they dump fishy rishi after the locals? Need to go back to basics and talk common sense ! Nobody likes starmer people just want the Tory’s and rishi out !!
@Foxy if you vote for an also-ran party (Lib or Green) in Mid Leicestershire you are simply enhancing your chances of returning a Tory MP. Fine if that’s what you want but, if not, don’t mess around in the FPP bear pit.
Yes, there is that risk, but if my seat comes into contention then there would be a massive landslide against the Tories.
The main reason though is that I don't agree with so much of Labour's plans, so won't vote for them.
Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?
Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.
Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.
Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.
It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.
Sinn Fein under Michelle O'Neill in Northern Ireland have been making several moves to be more emollient towards the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I think this is a strategy to reassure non-sectarian voters, and more moderate Nationalists, that SF aren't aiming to create divisions. This may well be part of a long-term strategy to persuade moderate Nationalists and those in the middle that it is safe to vote for Irish Unity, because it isn't being pursued in a divisive anti-British way.
Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.
I just cannot see SF being able to drop abstentionism, it would involve them taking an oath of allegiance to the crown. That of itself precludes the possibility. Even if they could get past that principled obstacle, the risk is that a sizeable portion of their activists, elected officials and voters split off to form a more hard line party. I can’t see them contemplating the risk.
Can we just drop the oath of allegiance? Does it serve any purpose?
DeValera got around that difficultly in the old Irish Free State, by stating that he & his followers refused to recognize that their signatures on oath of allegiance to the British Crown, was devoid of any meaning to them, other than fulfilling a technical requirement.
Of course Dev was a logician, albeit his own ultimate authority on what was logical.
@Foxy if you vote for an also-ran party (Lib or Green) in Mid Leicestershire you are simply enhancing your chances of returning a Tory MP. Fine if that’s what you want but, if not, don’t mess around in the FPP bear pit.
Yes, there is that risk, but if my seat comes into contention then there would be a massive landslide against the Tories.
The main reason though is that I don't agree with so much of Labour's plans, so won't vote for them.
Who was it who said, do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
My grandmother for one, but somehow doubt she coined the phrase!
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
I don't understand the appeal of Alliance, who seem like the left wing of the Lib Dems with knobs on.
What's not to like about the left wing of the LibDems with knobs on?
Personally I'd not noticed a great lack of knobs in the real Lib Dems.
Why didn’t they dump fishy rishi after the locals? Need to go back to basics and talk common sense ! Nobody likes starmer people just want the Tory’s and rishi out !!
There’s no evidence that it would have improved anything. The Tories are in a mess because they’re spending more time settling niche ideological scores than doing the job they were elected to do.
Had they took the responsibility of replacing Boris seriously and not indulged their internal fantasies by choosing an absolute fruitloop instead of a serious politician they might be in a less perilous situation. Once Truss decided to fully commit to larping as a caricature Thatcherite it was over for the Tories, obviously they needed to bundle Truss out of office with maximum speed but they were never going to be forgiven for choosing her to start with.
Does anyone know if Patel and Braverman are expected to avoid the predicted cull?
Both yes, Braverman 11.5% majority, 76% chance of winning. Patel 2.5% majority 55% chance of winning.
I am on Patel at 18/1 (a couple of months ago) on the basis that most of her opponents are probably out of the race. I still reckon it will be Badenoch, but I also think the 18/1 was value.
Why didn’t they dump fishy rishi after the locals? Need to go back to basics and talk common sense ! Nobody likes starmer people just want the Tory’s and rishi out !!
There’s no evidence that it would have improved anything. The Tories are in a mess because they’re spending more time settling niche ideological scores than doing the job they were elected to do.
Had they took the responsibility of replacing Boris seriously and not indulged their internal fantasies by choosing an absolute fruitloop instead of a serious politician they might be in a less perilous situation. Once Truss decided to fully commit to larping as a caricature Thatcherite it was over for the Tories, obviously they needed to bundle Truss out of office with maximum speed but they were never going to be forgiven for choosing her to start with.
Once Truss fucked up the Tories were done, regardless of which leader they picked next.
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
Would be funny though, you've got to admit.
I'm looking forward to an election night Portillofest!
Are you an elector in Huddersfield? And did you mean an election night Portaloo-fest? (See previous comment below.)
I think I'm the only poster in Huddersfield itself, though we have a decent West Yorkshire contingent, Slade next door in Colne Valley, David Herdson in Ossett & Denby Dale, Sandy Rentool was in Shipley, not sure if the boundary has moved for him, Morris Dancer iirc is Leeds based, not sure where, Northern Monkey in iirc, Pontefract &C.
Certain I've missed a few and can't think of a Calderdale poster.
I'm close enough to check whether they make a better job of that polling station this time out, and also if the portaloo swings significantly to the left this time out!
If the MRP is anywhere near correct and the Tories want to pick a more centrist candidate, a wild card might be Alicia Kearns, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee?
Anyone have a list of the 66 seats the Tories would hold? I wonder if Micky Fab's is one of them.
Aldridge-Brownhills Wendy Morton Arundel and South Downs Andrew Griffith Beaconsfield Joy Morrissey Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk John Lamont Bicester and Woodstock Unknown (new seat) Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe Fay Jones Brentwood and Ongar Alex Burghart Brigg and Immingham Martin Vickers Buckinghamshire Mid Greg Smith Cambridgeshire North East Steve Barclay Chichester Gillian Keegan Christchurch Christopher Chope Cotswolds North Unknown (new seat) Daventry Chris Heaton-Harris Devon South Anthony Mangnall Dorset North Simon Hoare Dorset West Chris Loder Droitwich and Evesham Nigel Huddleston East Grinstead and Uckfield Unknown (new seat) Essex North West Kemi Badenoch Exmouth and Exeter East Simon Jupp Fareham and Waterlooville Suella Braverman Gordon and Buchan Unknown (changed seat) Hamble Valley Unknown (new seat) Hampshire East Damian Hinds Hampshire North East Ranil Jayawardena Hampshire North West Kit Malthouse Herefordshire North Bill Wiggin Kenilworth and Southam Jeremy Wright Kingswinford and South Staffordshire Gavin Williamson Louth and Horncastle Victoria Atkins Maidenhead Theresa May Maldon John Whittingdale Melksham and Devizes Unknown (new seat) Meriden and Solihull East Saqib Bhatti Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr Craig Williams New Forest East Julian Lewis New Forest West Desmond Swayne Norfolk North Duncan Baker Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire Rayleigh and Wickford Mark Francois Reigate Crispin Blunt Richmond and Northallerton Rishi Sunak Romsey and Southampton North Caroline Nokes Runnymede and Weybridge Ben Spencer Rutland and Stamford Alicia Kearns Salisbury John Glen Sevenoaks Laura Trott Shropshire South Philip Dunne Solihull West and Shirley Julian Knight South Holland and The Deepings John Hayes Southend West and Leigh David Amess Stratford-on-Avon Nadhim Zahawi Surrey East Claire Coutinho Sussex Weald Nus Ghani Tewkesbury Laurence Robertson Tonbridge Tom Tugendhat Torbay Kevin Foster Waveney Valley Unknown (new seat) Weald of Kent Unknown (new seat) Wells and Mendip Hills James Heappey Wetherby and Easingwold Alec Shelbrooke Wiltshire East Danny Kruger Witham Priti Patel Witney Robert Courts Worcestershire West Harriett Baldwin
Anyone have a list of the 66 seats the Tories would hold? I wonder if Micky Fab's is one of them.
Aldridge-Brownhills Wendy Morton Arundel and South Downs Andrew Griffith Beaconsfield Joy Morrissey Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk John Lamont Bicester and Woodstock Unknown (new seat) Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe Fay Jones Brentwood and Ongar Alex Burghart Brigg and Immingham Martin Vickers Buckinghamshire Mid Greg Smith Cambridgeshire North East Steve Barclay Chichester Gillian Keegan Christchurch Christopher Chope Cotswolds North Unknown (new seat) Daventry Chris Heaton-Harris Devon South Anthony Mangnall Dorset North Simon Hoare Dorset West Chris Loder Droitwich and Evesham Nigel Huddleston East Grinstead and Uckfield Unknown (new seat) Essex North West Kemi Badenoch Exmouth and Exeter East Simon Jupp Fareham and Waterlooville Suella Braverman Gordon and Buchan Unknown (changed seat) Hamble Valley Unknown (new seat) Hampshire East Damian Hinds Hampshire North East Ranil Jayawardena Hampshire North West Kit Malthouse Herefordshire North Bill Wiggin Kenilworth and Southam Jeremy Wright Kingswinford and South Staffordshire Gavin Williamson Louth and Horncastle Victoria Atkins Maidenhead Theresa May Maldon John Whittingdale Melksham and Devizes Unknown (new seat) Meriden and Solihull East Saqib Bhatti Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr Craig Williams New Forest East Julian Lewis New Forest West Desmond Swayne Norfolk North Duncan Baker Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire Rayleigh and Wickford Mark Francois Reigate Crispin Blunt Richmond and Northallerton Rishi Sunak Romsey and Southampton North Caroline Nokes Runnymede and Weybridge Ben Spencer Rutland and Stamford Alicia Kearns Salisbury John Glen Sevenoaks Laura Trott Shropshire South Philip Dunne Solihull West and Shirley Julian Knight South Holland and The Deepings John Hayes Southend West and Leigh David Amess Stratford-on-Avon Nadhim Zahawi Surrey East Claire Coutinho Sussex Weald Nus Ghani Tewkesbury Laurence Robertson Tonbridge Tom Tugendhat Torbay Kevin Foster Waveney Valley Unknown (new seat) Weald of Kent Unknown (new seat) Wells and Mendip Hills James Heappey Wetherby and Easingwold Alec Shelbrooke Wiltshire East Danny Kruger Witham Priti Patel Witney Robert Courts Worcestershire West Harriett Baldwin
Micky Fab would lose to Labour by 2.0%
Thanks. Surprised that Solhull West would stay Tory, must be a split vote between Lab and LD. Also Southend West which a lot of other forecasts are saying would go Labour. Maybe they've taken the by-election as a base by mistake?
Anyone have a list of the 66 seats the Tories would hold? I wonder if Micky Fab's is one of them.
Aldridge-Brownhills Wendy Morton Arundel and South Downs Andrew Griffith Beaconsfield Joy Morrissey Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk John Lamont Bicester and Woodstock Unknown (new seat) Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe Fay Jones Brentwood and Ongar Alex Burghart Brigg and Immingham Martin Vickers Buckinghamshire Mid Greg Smith Cambridgeshire North East Steve Barclay Chichester Gillian Keegan Christchurch Christopher Chope Cotswolds North Unknown (new seat) Daventry Chris Heaton-Harris Devon South Anthony Mangnall Dorset North Simon Hoare Dorset West Chris Loder Droitwich and Evesham Nigel Huddleston East Grinstead and Uckfield Unknown (new seat) Essex North West Kemi Badenoch Exmouth and Exeter East Simon Jupp Fareham and Waterlooville Suella Braverman Gordon and Buchan Unknown (changed seat) Hamble Valley Unknown (new seat) Hampshire East Damian Hinds Hampshire North East Ranil Jayawardena Hampshire North West Kit Malthouse Herefordshire North Bill Wiggin Kenilworth and Southam Jeremy Wright Kingswinford and South Staffordshire Gavin Williamson Louth and Horncastle Victoria Atkins Maidenhead Theresa May Maldon John Whittingdale Melksham and Devizes Unknown (new seat) Meriden and Solihull East Saqib Bhatti Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr Craig Williams New Forest East Julian Lewis New Forest West Desmond Swayne Norfolk North Duncan Baker Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire Rayleigh and Wickford Mark Francois Reigate Crispin Blunt Richmond and Northallerton Rishi Sunak Romsey and Southampton North Caroline Nokes Runnymede and Weybridge Ben Spencer Rutland and Stamford Alicia Kearns Salisbury John Glen Sevenoaks Laura Trott Shropshire South Philip Dunne Solihull West and Shirley Julian Knight South Holland and The Deepings John Hayes Southend West and Leigh David Amess Stratford-on-Avon Nadhim Zahawi Surrey East Claire Coutinho Sussex Weald Nus Ghani Tewkesbury Laurence Robertson Tonbridge Tom Tugendhat Torbay Kevin Foster Waveney Valley Unknown (new seat) Weald of Kent Unknown (new seat) Wells and Mendip Hills James Heappey Wetherby and Easingwold Alec Shelbrooke Wiltshire East Danny Kruger Witham Priti Patel Witney Robert Courts Worcestershire West Harriett Baldwin
Micky Fab would lose to Labour by 2.0%
Advantage to being resident & elector of Meriden and Solihull East, is that you get to declare "My MP is Bhatti".
Just digging around in the stats about Reform voters - these people are really out there. A view of the world distinct from everyone else.
It's telling that there aren't any Reform PBers, right? Outside this forum's wide political spectrum. From the stats, even current Tory voters are likely to be much closer Starmer's Labour than they are to Reform.
It's possible there will be no further swingback from Reform - you cannot satisfy them. Tactical voting looks to be incoherent and inconsequential on the result (except in Scotland). The scale of the defeat for the Conservatives would then be entirely down to turnout.
Don't successful SF candidates get offices in Westminster/Portcullis House? I've bumped (literally) into Gerry Adams before in Parliament Square.
A good SF MP-elect is one that is very serious about what in USA we call "constituent services" for their constituents. ESPECIALLY members of Loyalist community.
I have emailed you a proposed article on political parties. It is 1200 words long. It has had all the personal data removed. It is submitted to you on the condition that you do not breach my anonymity: please accept that or return it unpublished. I hope that you look kindly upon it.
Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?
Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.
Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.
Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.
It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.
Sinn Fein under Michelle O'Neill in Northern Ireland have been making several moves to be more emollient towards the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I think this is a strategy to reassure non-sectarian voters, and more moderate Nationalists, that SF aren't aiming to create divisions. This may well be part of a long-term strategy to persuade moderate Nationalists and those in the middle that it is safe to vote for Irish Unity, because it isn't being pursued in a divisive anti-British way.
Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.
I just cannot see SF being able to drop abstentionism, it would involve them taking an oath of allegiance to the crown. That of itself precludes the possibility. Even if they could get past that principled obstacle, the risk is that a sizeable portion of their activists, elected officials and voters split off to form a more hard line party. I can’t see them contemplating the risk.
Can we just drop the oath of allegiance? Does it serve any purpose?
DeValera got around that difficultly in the old Irish Free State, by stating that he & his followers refused to recognize that their signatures on oath of allegiance to the British Crown, was devoid of any meaning to them, other than fulfilling a technical requirement.
Of course Dev was a logician, albeit his own ultimate authority on what was logical.
Like Boris Johnson sending a photocopy of the legislation regarding a Brexit extension, instead of an actual signed letter. A clever way around it but still wrong. An oath is a serious thing and should not be made lightly or with mental reservation.
Why didn’t they dump fishy rishi after the locals? Need to go back to basics and talk common sense ! Nobody likes starmer people just want the Tory’s and rishi out !!
There’s no evidence that it would have improved anything. The Tories are in a mess because they’re spending more time settling niche ideological scores than doing the job they were elected to do.
Had they took the responsibility of replacing Boris seriously and not indulged their internal fantasies by choosing an absolute fruitloop instead of a serious politician they might be in a less perilous situation. Once Truss decided to fully commit to larping as a caricature Thatcherite it was over for the Tories, obviously they needed to bundle Truss out of office with maximum speed but they were never going to be forgiven for choosing her to start with.
Once Truss fucked up the Tories were done, regardless of which leader they picked next.
I wonder if there is finally buyers remorse from those idiot MPs who supported her?
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
Unlike 1997 this is an election motivated by revenge, not hope.
And not healthy.
Attacking the motives of the electorate now? It shows how tone deaf you and your lot are.
If you had even a modicum of humility, instead of knee-jerk reaction you would pause, reflect, and ask yourself why the British people appear to be feeling this way.
Post less frequently and less acerbically on here. Reflect more on why the electorate is turning its back on you (pl).
Comments
So for the first time in my life I'm considering not voting.
Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.
Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.
Con: 33.8%
Lab 40.0%
LD: 10.9%
Grn: 3.9%
Ref: 10.7%
Oth: 0.7%
In the United States, "WASP" is (or rather was) NOT limited to White Protestants of English heritage. Instead, included any White Protestant of northwest Euro ethnicity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhlenberg_legend
"Britain's worst polling station, 2019", Lascelles Hall, Huddersfield.
A portakabin with a lean-to portaloo adjacent.
It will be good to have another numerate MP.
Before the 1997 GE the Tories polled as high as 34% a couple of times, a few 33%, lots of 32% and 31% scores. And they still only got 30.7%. And we all know that the pre-1997 polling was flawed because it lacked the spiral of silence adjustment.
Now, sure, the polls could be wrong. They're certainly not infallible. But the polling numbers really are that bad for the Tories and so I think, unless something changes, it really could happen. And, after Truss, after everything else, isn't the record of this Tory government a lot worse than Major's?
Generally in context of Anglo contrasted with Hispanic . . . who may actually know little or no Spanish.
I salute your indefatigablity
https://order-order.com/2024/05/31/tax-raising-fanatic-resolution-foundation-director-given-labour-candidacy/
2) “Our platform is all about 300 years of oppression and violence and how it will all be better if *we* win. And grind our enemies into the dust.
3) “Our platform is about how we should all be grown up and work together to make the schools, hospitals and roads a bit better.”
Pick one.
He has definitely denied many facts in the trial.
Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.
That the Chief Financial Officer for decades is serving his second prison sentence, the second for lying about all the lying going on in the company's finances, is a pretty good indicator of how it was run.
#New General Election Poll
🔵 Biden 41% (+2)
🔴 Trump 39%
Trump was ahead last poll
Ipsos - 2556 A - 5/31
The Conservatives would still be the main Opposition, still ahead of Reform on voteshare and still ahead of the LDs on seats.
An extinction level event would be the Tories ceasing to be the main opposition with the LDs overtaking them on seats AND Reform overtaking the Tories on voteshare to become the main party of the right in the UK
Though one of my suggestions for Ireland to ease the path for Irish Unity is for Ireland to join the Commonwealth, so I envisage a degree of rapprochement.
Though there is zero chance of SF winning South Antrim which they give SF the advantage in, in 2019 SF got just 11% there
But when the last half dozen polls in a row are telling you something, and Sunak's Dad's Army BS has failed to shift the needle at all, it does suggest that what we see is what we're going to get. The only question is whether the polls are accurate or not.
But any swingback from Reform voters will be significant. The tactical voting effects are a bit of a mystery. Then you have turnout - will it really be that high, especially for younger people?
But what it does mean is that Trump is a convicted felon, and that is what matters at present.
The main reason though is that I don't agree with so much of Labour's plans, so won't vote for them.
Now...
Tom Harwood
@tomhfh
·
2h
Reform UK: 12%, zero seats.
Of course Dev was a logician, albeit his own ultimate authority on what was logical.
My grandmother for one, but somehow doubt she coined the phrase!
Had they took the responsibility of replacing Boris seriously and not indulged their internal fantasies by choosing an absolute fruitloop instead of a serious politician they might be in a less perilous situation. Once Truss decided to fully commit to larping as a caricature Thatcherite it was over for the Tories, obviously they needed to bundle Truss out of office with maximum speed but they were never going to be forgiven for choosing her to start with.
Certain I've missed a few and can't think of a Calderdale poster.
I'm close enough to check whether they make a better job of that polling station this time out, and also if the portaloo swings significantly to the left this time out!
1/10 of the BBC most read stories are about the election.
"Boris Johnson: Trump’s conviction was ‘liberal hit job’"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/31/boris-johnson-donald-trump-conviction-liberal-hit-job/
"Whisper it, but Rishi Sunak is making an extraordinary comeback"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/31/rishi-sunak-comeback-general-election-uk-conservatives/
Arundel and South Downs Andrew Griffith
Beaconsfield Joy Morrissey
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk John Lamont
Bicester and Woodstock Unknown (new seat)
Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe Fay Jones
Brentwood and Ongar Alex Burghart
Brigg and Immingham Martin Vickers
Buckinghamshire Mid Greg Smith
Cambridgeshire North East Steve Barclay
Chichester Gillian Keegan
Christchurch Christopher Chope
Cotswolds North Unknown (new seat)
Daventry Chris Heaton-Harris
Devon South Anthony Mangnall
Dorset North Simon Hoare
Dorset West Chris Loder
Droitwich and Evesham Nigel Huddleston
East Grinstead and Uckfield Unknown (new seat)
Essex North West Kemi Badenoch
Exmouth and Exeter East Simon Jupp
Fareham and Waterlooville Suella Braverman
Gordon and Buchan Unknown (changed seat)
Hamble Valley Unknown (new seat)
Hampshire East Damian Hinds
Hampshire North East Ranil Jayawardena
Hampshire North West Kit Malthouse
Herefordshire North Bill Wiggin
Kenilworth and Southam Jeremy Wright
Kingswinford and South Staffordshire Gavin Williamson
Louth and Horncastle Victoria Atkins
Maidenhead Theresa May
Maldon John Whittingdale
Melksham and Devizes Unknown (new seat)
Meriden and Solihull East Saqib Bhatti
Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr Craig Williams
New Forest East Julian Lewis
New Forest West Desmond Swayne
Norfolk North Duncan Baker
Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire
Rayleigh and Wickford Mark Francois
Reigate Crispin Blunt
Richmond and Northallerton Rishi Sunak
Romsey and Southampton North Caroline Nokes
Runnymede and Weybridge Ben Spencer
Rutland and Stamford Alicia Kearns
Salisbury John Glen
Sevenoaks Laura Trott
Shropshire South Philip Dunne
Solihull West and Shirley Julian Knight
South Holland and The Deepings John Hayes
Southend West and Leigh David Amess
Stratford-on-Avon Nadhim Zahawi
Surrey East Claire Coutinho
Sussex Weald Nus Ghani
Tewkesbury Laurence Robertson
Tonbridge Tom Tugendhat
Torbay Kevin Foster
Waveney Valley Unknown (new seat)
Weald of Kent Unknown (new seat)
Wells and Mendip Hills James Heappey
Wetherby and Easingwold Alec Shelbrooke
Wiltshire East Danny Kruger
Witham Priti Patel
Witney Robert Courts
Worcestershire West Harriett Baldwin
Micky Fab would lose to Labour by 2.0%
Being obsessed with politics is considered borderline anti-social by about 80% of the adult population.
It's telling that there aren't any Reform PBers, right? Outside this forum's wide political spectrum. From the stats, even current Tory voters are likely to be much closer Starmer's Labour than they are to Reform.
It's possible there will be no further swingback from Reform - you cannot satisfy them. Tactical voting looks to be incoherent and inconsequential on the result (except in Scotland). The scale of the defeat for the Conservatives would then be entirely down to turnout.
That's good civics AND good politics.
From: @viewcode
Good morning to you both
I have emailed you a proposed article on political parties. It is 1200 words long. It has had all the personal data removed. It is submitted to you on the condition that you do not breach my anonymity: please accept that or return it unpublished. I hope that you look kindly upon it.
Regards, @viewcode
SHE LOST YOU YOUR JOB....
If you had even a modicum of humility, instead of knee-jerk reaction you would pause, reflect, and ask yourself why the British people appear to be feeling this way.
Post less frequently and less acerbically on here. Reflect more on why the electorate is turning its back on you (pl).