The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
I'm at a boutique family hotel and the number of hot yummy mummies is off the scale. They all have kids called Alfie and Oscar and call the evening meal "supper" - you get the picture.
Yes, I'm happily married but boy oh boy are they hot. They take care of themselves and know how to dress - such that one can easily mentally undress.
Not sure they're as hot as my wife though.
Become a Mormon.
I sometimes wonder if I have a problem.
Either lots of men are the same, and just keep it quiet, or I need a lot of cold showers.
Not just you.
I met the love of my life and I still couldn't keep the snake inside the pet store.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
It's worse than that
39% think "when it comes to refugees, violence is acceptable if it is the only way to get the government's attention"
This is dreadful. And yet, all so predictable. And Labour will do nothing about it, except make it worse as they try and censor anyone with these opinions. Trouble is, you cannot censor 40% of a nation
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
Fieldwork 7-8 August. Still terrifying, but those figures are surely the absolute peak.
A repoll when everyone has calmed down would surely show very different results.
Like, asking a victims family straight after sentencing for an awful crime, whether we should introduce the death penalty vs a few months later.
lol. Coz of course it's all going to get better. The boats will stop. Migration will come down to zero. There won't be any more terror attacks or knife crimes
So this seems to be the explanation/excuse for the reduction in gold medals:
UK Sport chair Katherine Grainger says Great Britain's success in Paris is "extraordinary", but Team GB have moved past the era of "winning at all costs".
The five-time Olympic medal winner says creating a positive environment for the athletes is just as important as finishing on the podium.
"It is about winning well, not winning at any cost," Grainger, who leads the body responsible for allocating funding to sports for each Olympic cycle.
Well, they delivered about the same total and anyone who got one must have had a decent shout at a gold, so really it seems more like just a bit of bad luck that the ratio of golds is down as much as it is, and the approach taken at worst relatively neutral.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
It's worse than that
39% think "when it comes to refugees, violence is acceptable if it is the only way to get the government's attention"
This is dreadful. And yet, all so predictable. And Labour will do nothing about it, except make it worse as they try and censor anyone with these opinions. Trouble is, you cannot censor 40% of a nation
Utterly appalling.
No doubt we will now be met with a cacophony of excuses as to why it's either not a problem, their problem or our problem for 'goading' it.
Outside a very small minority at absolutely no point do I expect any sort of epiphany on this by most of our liberal establishment.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
Land without planning permission (current state) is worth X; with permission is worth multiples of X. Market value is actually X plus a bit - with the premium representing a possibility it will get permission later. I think it's that price they are going for.
It can’t be that mathematically
If they issue a CPO the probability approaches 100%. If they don’t it approaches zero.
Exactly. It's probably not a huge premium on the agricultural value of the land but it does exist and the premium would continue to exist if the speculator sold the land on because there is always a possibility of development on green belt land.
No you are taking the option value from the owner.
Of course. It would be stupid, or possibly corrupt, for the government not to in this case.
Fieldwork 7-8 August. Still terrifying, but those figures are surely the absolute peak.
A repoll when everyone has calmed down would surely show very different results.
Like, asking a victims family straight after sentencing for an awful crime, whether we should introduce the death penalty vs a few months later.
lol. Coz of course it's all going to get better. The boats will stop. Migration will come down to zero. There won't be any more terror attacks or knife crimes
I’d have expected with the swift police action and the court cases going through at the time of the polling I would have expected the numbers to be lower than what would normally be expected not higher.
Graham Thorpe, the former England cricketer, died after being struck by a train in Surrey.
An inquest is due to open into Thorpe’s death on Tuesday, after his family revealed he took his own life following a long battle with depression and anxiety.
Telegraph Sport understands that Thorpe died last Sunday morning after being hit by a train in east Surrey.
A spokesman for Surrey Coroner said: “We can confirm that the Coroner has received a referral for a Mr Graham Thorpe from the British Transport Police. A post mortem examination has been undertaken and Mr Thorpe’s body released to his family.”
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
Fieldwork 7-8 August. Still terrifying, but those figures are surely the absolute peak.
A repoll when everyone has calmed down would surely show very different results.
Like, asking a victims family straight after sentencing for an awful crime, whether we should introduce the death penalty vs a few months later.
lol. Coz of course it's all going to get better. The boats will stop. Migration will come down to zero. There won't be any more terror attacks or knife crimes
If it wasn’t such a grim subject, I’d suggest a charity bet.
The same/similar question, polled now, or in the next week or so, will show far lower figures in support of violence. You recon those figures are the new normal?
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
That's 40% of the country. About 25-30 million people
"write them off"
How about addressing migration and asylum and integration, with firmness and fairness and bringing both migration and asylum down dramatically, so the public feels at peace and secure, and we don't turn into Nazi Germany? How about doing that?
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
Aaaaaand.. there we have it.
You disagree?
You think that someone answering that it is acceptable to use violence is not racist?
So this seems to be the explanation/excuse for the reduction in gold medals:
UK Sport chair Katherine Grainger says Great Britain's success in Paris is "extraordinary", but Team GB have moved past the era of "winning at all costs".
The five-time Olympic medal winner says creating a positive environment for the athletes is just as important as finishing on the podium.
"It is about winning well, not winning at any cost," Grainger, who leads the body responsible for allocating funding to sports for each Olympic cycle.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
That's 40% of the country. About 25-30 million people
"write them off"
How about addressing migration and asylum and integration, with firmness and fairness and bringing both migration and asylum down dramatically, so the public feels at peace and secure, and we don't turn into Nazi Germany? How about doing that?
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
I'm at a boutique family hotel and the number of hot yummy mummies is off the scale. They all have kids called Alfie and Oscar and call the evening meal "supper" - you get the picture.
Yes, I'm happily married but boy oh boy are they hot. They take care of themselves and know how to dress - such that one can easily mentally undress.
Not sure they're as hot as my wife though.
Become a Mormon.
I sometimes wonder if I have a problem.
Either lots of men are the same, and just keep it quiet, or I need a lot of cold showers.
Not just you.
I met the love of my life and I still couldn't keep the snake inside the pet store.
What do women and swimming pools have in common?
They both cost a lot of money to maintain for the amount of time you spend inside them.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
That's 40% of the country. About 25-30 million people
"write them off"
How about addressing migration and asylum and integration, with firmness and fairness and bringing both migration and asylum down dramatically, so the public feels at peace and secure, and we don't turn into Nazi Germany? How about doing that?
I call bullshit that it is 40% of the country.
Unfortunately not complete bullshit. Most Reform voters and and about half of Conservatives are racists who endorse violence. It's what it is.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
It's worse than that
39% think "when it comes to refugees, violence is acceptable if it is the only way to get the government's attention"
This is dreadful. And yet, all so predictable. And Labour will do nothing about it, except make it worse as they try and censor anyone with these opinions. Trouble is, you cannot censor 40% of a nation
Utterly appalling.
No doubt we will now be met with a cacophony of excuses as to why it's either not a problem, their problem or our problem for 'goading' it.
Outside a very small minority at absolutely no point do I expect any sort of epiphany on this by most of our liberal establishment.
What the fuck has this got to do with the 'liberal establishment'? These are the attitudes of the 1930s.
Fieldwork 7-8 August. Still terrifying, but those figures are surely the absolute peak.
A repoll when everyone has calmed down would surely show very different results.
Like, asking a victims family straight after sentencing for an awful crime, whether we should introduce the death penalty vs a few months later.
lol. Coz of course it's all going to get better. The boats will stop. Migration will come down to zero. There won't be any more terror attacks or knife crimes
If it wasn’t such a grim subject, I’d suggest a charity bet.
The same/similar question, polled now, or in the next week or so, will show far lower figures in support of violence. You recon those figures are the new normal?
I think you’re wrong.
My guess is they will be extremely volatile, as the national mood is so febrile. Could go down massively next week, then another atrocity, and they will go back up
Does it matter? Getting this polling result just once is a huge alarm signal
It's like one day when your blood pressure consistently reads 190/120. You need to see a doctor. You need to do something
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Well, if 30% of respondents didn't give an answer that would cut the number to a sixth*, as it is we just don't know. I also suspect the red-green was chosen for (melo)dramatic reasons.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
If they're members of the BPC then where are the data tables, because options never add up to 100% without excluding some data.
Look at this chart. Why did the numbers crossing the Channel suddenly jump from 2019? And it's not a small change.
It's not a change in government policy here in the UK. There are push and pull factors, so what's changed with the push factors? Syria and the Arab Spring happened thirteen years ago. So why the sudden uptick?
One theory is that we successfully closed off the land crossing - ie the lorries in the Chunnel
So then one bright spark thought: Hold on, why don't we simply cross in a boat, and they did, and it was easy, and no one could stop them as it risked drowning them. And, the French were probably quite happy to see them go. And then everyone copied those pioneers
Literally that simple. No one had tried it before
It's fucking BREXIT you stupid fool!
Making the UK more attractive, you mean?
Ahaha nice try. So by your logic, before Brexit it was:
"I've risked my life to escape the Taliban, left my family behind, blown my life savings on getting to Europe, but OMG I'm not going to the UK where they are under the yoke of the EU. Oh no, I'd rather stay here in France, in the, er, EU"
I can see why you struggle with a lot of this if that's your thought process.
And what’s your logic for Brexit being to blame?
My logic is simple. Total lack of incentive on the part of the French to help prevent any boats. Quite the opposite in fact. We told them we were leaving because we didn't like them; they said well fuck-you then. We'd have done the same if the roles were reversed.
So this seems to be the explanation/excuse for the reduction in gold medals:
UK Sport chair Katherine Grainger says Great Britain's success in Paris is "extraordinary", but Team GB have moved past the era of "winning at all costs".
The five-time Olympic medal winner says creating a positive environment for the athletes is just as important as finishing on the podium.
"It is about winning well, not winning at any cost," Grainger, who leads the body responsible for allocating funding to sports for each Olympic cycle.
Pretty atrocious attitude. It seems Team GB should move on from the era of Katherine Grainger - and fast.
British Rowing essentially told her (and her ilk) to do one. And brought back heavy end seat racing*. Hence the golds.
*The practise of swapping people in and out of the boat and in different positions to see if it goes faster. Considered fairly brutal since you can be dropped from the boat at any time, if someone makes the boat go faster.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
It's worse than that
39% think "when it comes to refugees, violence is acceptable if it is the only way to get the government's attention"
This is dreadful. And yet, all so predictable. And Labour will do nothing about it, except make it worse as they try and censor anyone with these opinions. Trouble is, you cannot censor 40% of a nation
Utterly appalling.
No doubt we will now be met with a cacophony of excuses as to why it's either not a problem, their problem or our problem for 'goading' it.
Outside a very small minority at absolutely no point do I expect any sort of epiphany on this by most of our liberal establishment.
What the fuck has this got to do with the 'liberal establishment'? These are the attitudes of the 1930s.
Britain is staring down the barrel of a very hard-right government unless the nettle of mass migration is grasped and the boats stopped.
End of.
What would this "hard right" (I don't even understand the term let alone what it means) Government actually do except talk tough?
Are we talking a complete ban on all immigration (or a one-in, one-out policy which would be easy once tens of thousands of people who wouldn't want to live under such a Government have emigrated)?
As for "stopping the boats" - let's say it out aloud - are we talking about the Royal Navy in the Channel or the Irish Sea forcibly sinking migrant dinghies and leaving the migrants to drown? Is this what this "hard right" Government would do with public support? The international community might have a view.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
It's worse than that
39% think "when it comes to refugees, violence is acceptable if it is the only way to get the government's attention"
This is dreadful. And yet, all so predictable. And Labour will do nothing about it, except make it worse as they try and censor anyone with these opinions. Trouble is, you cannot censor 40% of a nation
Utterly appalling.
No doubt we will now be met with a cacophony of excuses as to why it's either not a problem, their problem or our problem for 'goading' it.
Outside a very small minority at absolutely no point do I expect any sort of epiphany on this by most of our liberal establishment.
What the fuck has this got to do with the 'liberal establishment'? These are the attitudes of the 1930s.
The liberals aren't the problem here.
(And weren't in the 1930s either)
Well Lloyd George was a wee bit fash sympathetic..
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
If they're members of the BPC then where are the data tables, because options never add up to 100% without excluding some data.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Well, if 30% of respondents didn't give an answer that would cut the number to a sixth*, as it is we just don't know. I also suspect the red-green was chosen for (melo)dramatic reasons.
*number plucked from my arse
We are missing the point.
Which is where the **** is VI? There's all sorts of polling going - have we just forgotten to ask people how they plan to vote?
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
'All week' is doing a lot of work there. But yes, WeThink used to be Omnisis, so an established pollster.
On the face of it those are terrible numbers. I would like to see the data tables though.
(Also, I'm intrigued that WeThink deleted posts 5 and 6 from that thread.)
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Well, if 30% of respondents didn't give an answer that would cut the number to a sixth*, as it is we just don't know. I also suspect the red-green was chosen for (melo)dramatic reasons.
*number plucked from my arse
But my point is that if someone is willing to answer 'don't know' to that sort of question then, unless they are terminally stupid, they are just as bad as those who say yes. How can you read a question asking if it is acceptable to use violence against asylum seekers and 'not know' the answer?
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
If they're members of the BPC then where are the data tables, because options never add up to 100% without excluding some data.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Well, if 30% of respondents didn't give an answer that would cut the number to a sixth*, as it is we just don't know. I also suspect the red-green was chosen for (melo)dramatic reasons.
*number plucked from my arse
We are missing the point.
Which is where the **** is VI? There's all sorts of polling going - have we just forgotten to ask people how they plan to vote?
I suspect there's no funding for it this far away from any potential GE.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
If they're members of the BPC then where are the data tables, because options never add up to 100% without excluding some data.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
If they're members of the BPC then where are the data tables, because options never add up to 100% without excluding some data.
There's lots more results on their own TwiX account (some equally disturbing), but it seems they haven't put the full tables up yet. Looks like they do that a couple of days later, judging by their website
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
If they're members of the BPC then where are the data tables, because options never add up to 100% without excluding some data.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
To be fair, Britons have also voted for higher yet lower taxes, more yet less public spending, more pro-eco policies and yet fewer eco-policies. Which various governments have chosen to accept or reject is more down to policy, internal factions and momentary convenience than anything else.
Maybe another (or even this) government will get migration down to under 100k. Then howls of outrage as the gaps high migration was covering for are exposed to the salted air. Roll on in the next government promising all will be well if we increase migration by just a bit.
So this seems to be the explanation/excuse for the reduction in gold medals:
UK Sport chair Katherine Grainger says Great Britain's success in Paris is "extraordinary", but Team GB have moved past the era of "winning at all costs".
The five-time Olympic medal winner says creating a positive environment for the athletes is just as important as finishing on the podium.
"It is about winning well, not winning at any cost," Grainger, who leads the body responsible for allocating funding to sports for each Olympic cycle.
We can celebrate whatever we want to celebrate. Winning the most medals in the world after US and China seems a pretty big achievement to me. Happy to congratulate the whole GB team for it.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Well, if 30% of respondents didn't give an answer that would cut the number to a sixth*, as it is we just don't know. I also suspect the red-green was chosen for (melo)dramatic reasons.
*number plucked from my arse
We are missing the point.
Which is where the **** is VI? There's all sorts of polling going - have we just forgotten to ask people how they plan to vote?
I suspect there's no funding for it this far away from any potential GE.
Voting intention polls typically start days after the general election. And this poll (and others) clearly established previous voting, so what 'funding' is needed to add voting intention?
Look at this chart. Why did the numbers crossing the Channel suddenly jump from 2019? And it's not a small change.
It's not a change in government policy here in the UK. There are push and pull factors, so what's changed with the push factors? Syria and the Arab Spring happened thirteen years ago. So why the sudden uptick?
One theory is that we successfully closed off the land crossing - ie the lorries in the Chunnel
So then one bright spark thought: Hold on, why don't we simply cross in a boat, and they did, and it was easy, and no one could stop them as it risked drowning them. And, the French were probably quite happy to see them go. And then everyone copied those pioneers
Literally that simple. No one had tried it before
It's fucking BREXIT you stupid fool!
Making the UK more attractive, you mean?
Ahaha nice try. So by your logic, before Brexit it was:
"I've risked my life to escape the Taliban, left my family behind, blown my life savings on getting to Europe, but OMG I'm not going to the UK where they are under the yoke of the EU. Oh no, I'd rather stay here in France, in the, er, EU"
I can see why you struggle with a lot of this if that's your thought process.
And what’s your logic for Brexit being to blame?
My logic is simple. Total lack of incentive on the part of the French to help prevent any boats. Quite the opposite in fact. We told them we were leaving because we didn't like them; they said well fuck-you then. We'd have done the same if the roles were reversed.
It's blindingly obvious and entirely predictable.
So I will ask again. Why is the year with the highest number of asylum seekers reaching the UK in the last quarter century not any of the years since Brexit but 2002 - when, as I seem to recall, we were still firmly within the EU?
You are so desperate to blame Brexit for everything that you have had a total logic failure.
Rather foolish of the new government to rule out Rwanda without any credible alternative policy. Or does anyone think that: 1. targeting criminal gangs; 2. establishing a Border Security Command; 3. creating a "Returns and Enforcement Unit" amounts to a credible policy?
Britain is staring down the barrel of a very hard-right government unless the nettle of mass migration is grasped and the boats stopped.
End of.
What would this "hard right" (I don't even understand the term let alone what it means) Government actually do except talk tough?
Are we talking a complete ban on all immigration (or a one-in, one-out policy which would be easy once tens of thousands of people who wouldn't want to live under such a Government have emigrated)?
As for "stopping the boats" - let's say it out aloud - are we talking about the Royal Navy in the Channel or the Irish Sea forcibly sinking migrant dinghies and leaving the migrants to drown? Is this what this "hard right" Government would do with public support? The international community might have a view.
Unfortunately, the debate hasn't got as far as "OK, you want a lot less immigration. How should the government deal with the consequences of making that happen?" There is still a fantasy that number can be made to go down and coastline can be cleared of small boats with no side effects whatsoever.
As for the polling, yes it's bad but it is worth noting it was done at peak panic. And personally, I'd like to see what agreement with the inverse statements is like- we know that people have a bias to agreeing with X, however silly it is.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
That's 40% of the country. About 25-30 million people
"write them off"
How about addressing migration and asylum and integration, with firmness and fairness and bringing both migration and asylum down dramatically, so the public feels at peace and secure, and we don't turn into Nazi Germany? How about doing that?
I call bullshit that it is 40% of the country.
Yes, it doesn't match with the 7% approval of people who did actually attack and threaten migrants.
I suspect it's people talking tough but horrified when they actually see it.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Well, if 30% of respondents didn't give an answer that would cut the number to a sixth*, as it is we just don't know. I also suspect the red-green was chosen for (melo)dramatic reasons.
*number plucked from my arse
But my point is that if someone is willing to answer 'don't know' to that sort of question then, unless they are terminally stupid, they are just as bad as those who say yes. How can you read a question asking if it is acceptable to use violence against asylum seekers and 'not know' the answer?
Yes, good point
It's not really a question where you shrug and say "hmm, dunno". It doesn't need deep thinking, does it? It's not like it demands great knowledge of politics
It asks you, do you approve of attacking migrants and refugees if it finally gets the attention of the government. And 40% said YEAH
That's the biggest ever signal I have seen, in this country, of the entire place going Fash unless we get a grip on these problems
Incidentally, in one of their later questions DKs are at 10%, FWIW
There's an establishment consensus to talk tough on immigration but not do enough about it to bring the numbers down. The voters aren't idiots, they can tell when they're being mugged off, and it pisses them right off.
You have to be honest in your words and deeds. If you speak tough on immigration then you have to act tough, and get the numbers down whatever the collateral damage to the economy, to people falling in love across borders, etc.
If you're not willing to incur those costs then you have to explain to the public why, and either win their support for higher immigration, or lose the election to someone who will act tough.
What's really tragic about the current system is that the immigration system isn't particularly lax. It's randomly cruel still to the windrush generation, it leaves refugees in destitution and limbo for years, it creates huge bureaucratic hurdles for normal people trying to live normal lives, and yet, despite that, despite all the rhetoric, there's still massive amounts of immigration.
I can't imagine anyone is happy with the status quo of the immigration system.
I'm curious as to why there is such divergence between the different pollsters. For example, you only get 6% support for the current "unrest" with YouGov.
Is it to do with hypotheticals? Lots of "sometimes" in the questions. Perhaps people kinda like the idea of a fight, but when one actually happens....nah.
Rather foolish of the new government to rule out Rwanda without any credible alternative policy. Or does anyone think that: 1. targeting criminal gangs; 2. establishing a Border Security Command; 3. creating a "Returns and Enforcement Unit" amounts to a credible policy?
That's very unfair - you forgot 4. Give the French even more money.
There's an establishment consensus to talk tough on immigration but not do enough about it to bring the numbers down. The voters aren't idiots, they can tell when they're being mugged off, and it pisses them right off.
You have to be honest in your words and actions. If you speak tough on immigration then you have to act tough, and get the numbers down whatever the collateral damage to the economy, to people falling in love across borders, etc.
If you're not willing to incur those costs then you have to explain to the public why, and either win their support for higher immigration, or lose the election to someone who will act tough.
What's really tragic about the current system is that the immigration system isn't particularly lax. It's randomly cruel still to the windrush generation, it leaves refugees in destitution and limbo for years, it creates huge bureaucratic hurdles for normal people trying to live normal lives, and yet, despite that, despite all the rhetoric, there's still massive amounts of immigration.
I can't imagine anyone is happy with the status quo of the immigration system.
"Randomly cruel" is an apt description about how most of the systems work. Whether you're on benefits, seeking asylum, about to take a pay-rise, moving house, going part-time, bettering yourself through eduction or training, or... almost anything else really.
Not sure anyone is aiming to fill that gap, politically.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
Look at this chart. Why did the numbers crossing the Channel suddenly jump from 2019? And it's not a small change.
It's not a change in government policy here in the UK. There are push and pull factors, so what's changed with the push factors? Syria and the Arab Spring happened thirteen years ago. So why the sudden uptick?
One theory is that we successfully closed off the land crossing - ie the lorries in the Chunnel
So then one bright spark thought: Hold on, why don't we simply cross in a boat, and they did, and it was easy, and no one could stop them as it risked drowning them. And, the French were probably quite happy to see them go. And then everyone copied those pioneers
Literally that simple. No one had tried it before
It's fucking BREXIT you stupid fool!
Making the UK more attractive, you mean?
Ahaha nice try. So by your logic, before Brexit it was:
"I've risked my life to escape the Taliban, left my family behind, blown my life savings on getting to Europe, but OMG I'm not going to the UK where they are under the yoke of the EU. Oh no, I'd rather stay here in France, in the, er, EU"
I can see why you struggle with a lot of this if that's your thought process.
And what’s your logic for Brexit being to blame?
My logic is simple. Total lack of incentive on the part of the French to help prevent any boats. Quite the opposite in fact. We told them we were leaving because we didn't like them; they said well fuck-you then. We'd have done the same if the roles were reversed.
It's blindingly obvious and entirely predictable.
So I will ask again. Why is the year with the highest number of asylum seekers reaching the UK in the last quarter century not any of the years since Brexit but 2002 - when, as I seem to recall, we were still firmly within the EU?
You are so desperate to blame Brexit for everything that you have had a total logic failure.
It's not hard to understand why 2002 was such a bad year for asylum seeker numbers: as the Migration Observatory website points out there were conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and the Balkans.
What's your explanation for asylum numbers remaining consistently below 40k throughout the period 2005 to 2018?
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
That's 40% of the country. About 25-30 million people
"write them off"
How about addressing migration and asylum and integration, with firmness and fairness and bringing both migration and asylum down dramatically, so the public feels at peace and secure, and we don't turn into Nazi Germany? How about doing that?
I call bullshit that it is 40% of the country.
Yes, it doesn't match with the 7% approval of people who did actually attack and threaten migrants.
I suspect it's people talking tough but horrified when they actually see it.
When people respond to this kind of poll they may be trying to send a message rather than telling the honest truth. They know politicians read the polling. It's like the observer effect in physics (where the act of observation alters the behaviour of the system).
Seems tonight's poll has come as a shock to many with some so incredulous they are questioning the validity of the poll
I would like to see further polling on this, but it is undeniable that a considerable number of our fellow citizens are extremely worried about immigration and the boat crossings and it would be an error to label them all as far right
When the furore calms down over the recent events, a conversation on immigration and the boats will be unavoidable and I notice Dame Margaret Hodge has come out in the open saying so
It is likely to worsen across Europe in the coming years and will raise real problems for all governments
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
If they're members of the BPC then where are the data tables, because options never add up to 100% without excluding some data.
I think the rule is that they have to be published within a few days or a week of publishing the poll.
The last tweet in the thread says:
This week’s poll was conducted on 7-8 August '24, to 1,278 people & weighted to a nat rep population. Search “WeThink polling” on all your social media channels & you’ll find us. Tabs to follow.
Look at this chart. Why did the numbers crossing the Channel suddenly jump from 2019? And it's not a small change.
It's not a change in government policy here in the UK. There are push and pull factors, so what's changed with the push factors? Syria and the Arab Spring happened thirteen years ago. So why the sudden uptick?
One theory is that we successfully closed off the land crossing - ie the lorries in the Chunnel
So then one bright spark thought: Hold on, why don't we simply cross in a boat, and they did, and it was easy, and no one could stop them as it risked drowning them. And, the French were probably quite happy to see them go. And then everyone copied those pioneers
Literally that simple. No one had tried it before
It's fucking BREXIT you stupid fool!
Making the UK more attractive, you mean?
Ahaha nice try. So by your logic, before Brexit it was:
"I've risked my life to escape the Taliban, left my family behind, blown my life savings on getting to Europe, but OMG I'm not going to the UK where they are under the yoke of the EU. Oh no, I'd rather stay here in France, in the, er, EU"
I can see why you struggle with a lot of this if that's your thought process.
And what’s your logic for Brexit being to blame?
My logic is simple. Total lack of incentive on the part of the French to help prevent any boats. Quite the opposite in fact. We told them we were leaving because we didn't like them; they said well fuck-you then. We'd have done the same if the roles were reversed.
It's blindingly obvious and entirely predictable.
So I will ask again. Why is the year with the highest number of asylum seekers reaching the UK in the last quarter century not any of the years since Brexit but 2002 - when, as I seem to recall, we were still firmly within the EU?
You are so desperate to blame Brexit for everything that you have had a total logic failure.
Also, who fucking cares about Brexit? The entire continent is going hard right, it's not like we are some crazy evil outlier
The hard right WON the Italian and Dutch elections. They were the biggest party in the French elex. They are in coalition in Sweden. They are rising in Germany. The Danes have a leftwing government that literally bulldozes ethnic ghettoes, because they were so scared of polling like this, if they didn't do it
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I disagree, but at least you are willing to have the argument, tho you could drop the pointless ad hominem
I think the costs in cohesion and crime etc are now too great. We have to accept the economic pain that comes with severely limited migration, and the government needs to be honest with the public. "OK we will bring it down, but it will be painful"
Mass migration was always a ponzi scheme in the end, bound to collapse, especially in a crowded country like the UK
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
If they're members of the BPC then where are the data tables, because options never add up to 100% without excluding some data.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
Why didn't the country collapse before 1997 when we had very low levels of immigration?
I'm at a boutique family hotel and the number of hot yummy mummies is off the scale. They all have kids called Alfie and Oscar and call the evening meal "supper" - you get the picture.
Yes, I'm happily married but boy oh boy are they hot. They take care of themselves and know how to dress - such that one can easily mentally undress.
Not sure they're as hot as my wife though.
Become a Mormon.
Just rereading O'Brian's HMS Surprise. Reminded that Dr Maturin recommended the radical ablation of the peccant member and its accessories. Also worked wonders for the temperament.
I think there was also another episode in a later book where he lauded the effects of castration specifically. Made folk much easier to live with, and so on.
A respected pollster has messaged me to say Matt Goodwin would be embarrassed to ask those questions that We Think have asked.
Here's an example.
'When it comes to the REFUGEE PROBLEM violence is sometimes the only means that citizens have to get the attention of British politicians.'
The pollster is telling the respondent that there is a problem. A good polling question should be neutral.
Some of the other questions are similarly loaded.
You will get a much different answer to the question 'Is it acceptable to commit violence against refugees?'
Update.
All the subsequent supplementaries are tainted because they ask about refugees but the earlier question has put in the mind of respondents that there is a refugee problem.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
That's 40% of the country. About 25-30 million people
"write them off"
How about addressing migration and asylum and integration, with firmness and fairness and bringing both migration and asylum down dramatically, so the public feels at peace and secure, and we don't turn into Nazi Germany? How about doing that?
I call bullshit that it is 40% of the country.
Yes, it doesn't match with the 7% approval of people who did actually attack and threaten migrants.
I suspect it's people talking tough but horrified when they actually see it.
When people respond to this kind of poll they may be trying to send a message rather than telling the honest truth. They know politicians read the polling. It's like the observer effect in physics (where the act of observation alters the behaviour of the system).
I'm at a boutique family hotel and the number of hot yummy mummies is off the scale. They all have kids called Alfie and Oscar and call the evening meal "supper" - you get the picture.
Yes, I'm happily married but boy oh boy are they hot. They take care of themselves and know how to dress - such that one can easily mentally undress.
Not sure they're as hot as my wife though.
Become a Mormon.
Just rereading O'Brian's HMS Surprise. Reminded that Dr Maturin recommended the radical ablation of the peccant member and its accessories. Also worked wonders for the temperament.
I can't remember, was that before or after he met and fell in love with Diana Villiers? It would certainly have saved him a deal of pain and trouble, but deprived readers of a lot of engagement with the books.
Before, or at least the quote brought up by Viewcode is. Not sure about the testicles bit (one does worry about one's memory but is it because one frets more as one gets older?).
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
That's 40% of the country. About 25-30 million people
"write them off"
How about addressing migration and asylum and integration, with firmness and fairness and bringing both migration and asylum down dramatically, so the public feels at peace and secure, and we don't turn into Nazi Germany? How about doing that?
I call bullshit that it is 40% of the country.
Yes, it doesn't match with the 7% approval of people who did actually attack and threaten migrants.
I suspect it's people talking tough but horrified when they actually see it.
When people respond to this kind of poll they may be trying to send a message rather than telling the honest truth. They know politicians read the polling. It's like the observer effect in physics (where the act of observation alters the behaviour of the system).
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
That's 40% of the country. About 25-30 million people
"write them off"
How about addressing migration and asylum and integration, with firmness and fairness and bringing both migration and asylum down dramatically, so the public feels at peace and secure, and we don't turn into Nazi Germany? How about doing that?
I call bullshit that it is 40% of the country.
Yes, it doesn't match with the 7% approval of people who did actually attack and threaten migrants.
I suspect it's people talking tough but horrified when they actually see it.
When people respond to this kind of poll they may be trying to send a message rather than telling the honest truth. They know politicians read the polling. It's like the observer effect in physics (where the act of observation alters the behaviour of the system).
So now we’re back to talking about cats again.
Leon would approve though as its talking about poisoning cats.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Good point.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
They are members of the BPC and @Benpointer has been quoting them all week as they had the first post-election VI polls
If they're members of the BPC then where are the data tables, because options never add up to 100% without excluding some data.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
Why didn't the country collapse before 1997 when we had very low levels of immigration?
Because they were defined as British at the time? Windrush and all that (that is exactly what it says on the passenger manifest/immigration document, which I looked up for a friend to find his dad in it).
Also different age structure; people dying earlier ...
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Well, if 30% of respondents didn't give an answer that would cut the number to a sixth*, as it is we just don't know. I also suspect the red-green was chosen for (melo)dramatic reasons.
*number plucked from my arse
We are missing the point.
Which is where the **** is VI? There's all sorts of polling going - have we just forgotten to ask people how they plan to vote?
I suspect there's no funding for it this far away from any potential GE.
Voting intention polls typically start days after the general election. And this poll (and others) clearly established previous voting, so what 'funding' is needed to add voting intention?
Not necessarily; there were no polls in the four weeks after the 2019 GE. I think it depends on how close the election was. There were quite a few polls after the 2017 and 2010 GEs but both of those left open the possibility of another GE in quick succession.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Because there isn't a finite supply of skilled or unskilled jobs. That's why we have universal education.
Extra skills is a good thing and leads to economic growth and unlocking new potential. Boosting our pool of unskilled workers does not.
We already have people leaving school in this country without skills, that's not a good thing, but we don't need to go out of our way to add more - nor should we be deciding that unskilled workers is a good thing and cutting our education budget either.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Who was claiming it was preferable?
HM Government (last incarnation), certainly by the implication of their actions and fiscal policies. (Purely a factual observation; I'm only looking in briefly.)
Comments
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
(stop sniggering at the back)
39% think "when it comes to refugees, violence is acceptable if it is the only way to get the government's attention"
This is dreadful. And yet, all so predictable. And Labour will do nothing about it, except make it worse as they try and censor anyone with these opinions. Trouble is, you cannot censor 40% of a nation
No doubt we will now be met with a cacophony of excuses as to why it's either not a problem, their problem or our problem for 'goading' it.
Outside a very small minority at absolutely no point do I expect any sort of epiphany on this by most of our liberal establishment.
My first response to that poll was thinking I hope its dodgy, and the lack of any DK etc is an indicator of it being dodgy.
Who exactly are "We think" - I've never heard of them before.
The same/similar question, polled now, or in the next week or so, will show far lower figures in support of violence. You recon those figures are the new normal?
I think you’re wrong.
"write them off"
How about addressing migration and asylum and integration, with firmness and fairness and bringing both migration and asylum down dramatically, so the public feels at peace and secure, and we don't turn into Nazi Germany? How about doing that?
End of.
You think that someone answering that it is acceptable to use violence is not racist?
And this is why Labour could be utterly destroyed on this issue in one term, very easily
Does it matter? Getting this polling result just once is a huge alarm signal
It's like one day when your blood pressure consistently reads 190/120. You need to see a doctor. You need to do something
"James
@liljamesjohn
For a country of 50m+, asking 1,278 people doesn't seem that reliable."
*number plucked from my arse
I call bullshit.
*The practise of swapping people in and out of the boat and in different positions to see if it goes faster. Considered fairly brutal since you can be dropped from the boat at any time, if someone makes the boat go faster.
(And weren't in the 1930s either)
Are we talking a complete ban on all immigration (or a one-in, one-out policy which would be easy once tens of thousands of people who wouldn't want to live under such a Government have emigrated)?
As for "stopping the boats" - let's say it out aloud - are we talking about the Royal Navy in the Channel or the Irish Sea forcibly sinking migrant dinghies and leaving the migrants to drown? Is this what this "hard right" Government would do with public support? The international community might have a view.
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/officers-members/
Which is where the **** is VI? There's all sorts of polling going - have we just forgotten to ask people how they plan to vote?
On the face of it those are terrible numbers. I would like to see the data tables though.
(Also, I'm intrigued that WeThink deleted posts 5 and 6 from that thread.)
So where are the data tables?
Maybe another (or even this) government will get migration down to under 100k. Then howls of outrage as the gaps high migration was covering for are exposed to the salted air. Roll on in the next government promising all will be well if we increase migration by just a bit.
You are so desperate to blame Brexit for everything that you have had a total logic failure.
As for the polling, yes it's bad but it is worth noting it was done at peak panic. And personally, I'd like to see what agreement with the inverse statements is like- we know that people have a bias to agreeing with X, however silly it is.
I suspect it's people talking tough but horrified when they actually see it.
It's not really a question where you shrug and say "hmm, dunno". It doesn't need deep thinking, does it? It's not like it demands great knowledge of politics
It asks you, do you approve of attacking migrants and refugees if it finally gets the attention of the government. And 40% said YEAH
That's the biggest ever signal I have seen, in this country, of the entire place going Fash unless we get a grip on these problems
Incidentally, in one of their later questions DKs are at 10%, FWIW
You have to be honest in your words and deeds. If you speak tough on immigration then you have to act tough, and get the numbers down whatever the collateral damage to the economy, to people falling in love across borders, etc.
If you're not willing to incur those costs then you have to explain to the public why, and either win their support for higher immigration, or lose the election to someone who will act tough.
What's really tragic about the current system is that the immigration system isn't particularly lax. It's randomly cruel still to the windrush generation, it leaves refugees in destitution and limbo for years, it creates huge bureaucratic hurdles for normal people trying to live normal lives, and yet, despite that, despite all the rhetoric, there's still massive amounts of immigration.
I can't imagine anyone is happy with the status quo of the immigration system.
Is it to do with hypotheticals? Lots of "sometimes" in the questions. Perhaps people kinda like the idea of a fight, but when one actually happens....nah.
Indeed. And also an urgent call to action
Other surveys have shown nothing like this.
Not sure anyone is aiming to fill that gap, politically.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
What's your explanation for asylum numbers remaining consistently below 40k throughout the period 2005 to 2018?
Seems tonight's poll has come as a shock to many with some so incredulous they are questioning the validity of the poll
I would like to see further polling on this, but it is undeniable that a considerable number of our fellow citizens are extremely worried about immigration and the boat crossings and it would be an error to label them all as far right
When the furore calms down over the recent events, a conversation on immigration and the boats will be unavoidable and I notice Dame Margaret Hodge has come out in the open saying so
It is likely to worsen across Europe in the coming years and will raise real problems for all governments
https://www.theguardian.com/global/article/2024/aug/11/were-too-frightened-to-talk-about-immigration-warns-top-labour-party-veteran?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
This week’s poll was conducted on 7-8 August '24, to 1,278 people & weighted to a nat rep population. Search “WeThink polling” on all your social media channels & you’ll find us. Tabs to follow.
(My bold)
The hard right WON the Italian and Dutch elections. They were the biggest party in the French elex. They are in coalition in Sweden. They are rising in Germany. The Danes have a leftwing government that literally bulldozes ethnic ghettoes, because they were so scared of polling like this, if they didn't do it
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1823076043017630114
Here's an example.
'When it comes to the REFUGEE PROBLEM violence is sometimes the only means that citizens have to get the attention of British politicians.'
The pollster is telling the respondent that there is a problem. A good polling question should be neutral.
Some of the other questions are similarly loaded.
You will get a much different answer to the question 'Is it acceptable to commit violence against refugees?'
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
I think the costs in cohesion and crime etc are now too great. We have to accept the economic pain that comes with severely limited migration, and the government needs to be honest with the public. "OK we will bring it down, but it will be painful"
Mass migration was always a ponzi scheme in the end, bound to collapse, especially in a crowded country like the UK
I think there was also another episode in a later book where he lauded the effects of castration specifically. Made folk much easier to live with, and so on.
All the subsequent supplementaries are tainted because they ask about refugees but the earlier question has put in the mind of respondents that there is a refugee problem.
https://x.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1822950394571456906
But this is like me and my cat. Only in my version I surrender, pet her, then give her a bowl full of tuna.
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Also different age structure; people dying earlier ...
eg
"Hostility against refugees is sometimes justified, even if it ends up in violence"
If anything I'd say that is loaded somewhat against Agreement, as it sounds so awful. And yet 32% of people Agreed. I would have expected 3-5%
Also
"Xenophobic acts of violence are defensible, if they result in fewer refugees being settled in your town"
36% Agree
Extra skills is a good thing and leads to economic growth and unlocking new potential. Boosting our pool of unskilled workers does not.
We already have people leaving school in this country without skills, that's not a good thing, but we don't need to go out of our way to add more - nor should we be deciding that unskilled workers is a good thing and cutting our education budget either.