politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After a series of polls showing the main parties level-pegg

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After a series of polls showing the main parties level-pegging today’s YouGov has LAB creeping back into the lead

For whatever reason things have not been going well for LAB in the polls over the past week. Only the Populus online poll on Monday showed a lead while Opinium, Ashcroft, ComRes and three successive YouGovs had LAB and CON level-pegging.

Read the full story here

Scott_P

Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.

This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.

Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?

[Deleted User]

I'm guessing that immigrants at sea in the Med are not, in the first instance, going to land in the UK but Italy. So...for the UK to be spending money on helping them to make their trips safer is not easy to defend as value for UK taxpayer's money. The left is already getting all excited about this. I'm not sure I want my tax money spent helping immigrants sail to Italy.

Electorally I suspect Dave will benefit from this decision.

foxinsoxuk

Italy and the EU should perhaps learn from the Australian experience of six months with no boats:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/19/satisfied-australia-marks-six-months-no-boatpeople

Anyone attemting such means should either be towed back to their country of embarkation, or taken to an offshore assessment centre, but not allowed to enter the EU.

In the longer term the answer is for more economic and political opportunities in their own countries. That is what brought an end to the mass waves of european migration to the Americas, antipodes and elsewhere of the 19th and 20th centuries.

JonnyJimmy

Patrick said:

I'm guessing that immigrants at sea in the Med are not, in the first instance, going to land in the UK but Italy. So...for the UK to be spending money on helping them to make their trips safer is not easy to defend as value for UK taxpayer's money. The left is already getting all excited about this. I'm not sure I want my tax money spent helping immigrants sail to Italy.

Electorally I suspect Dave will benefit from this decision.

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

Scott_P

JonnyJimmy said:

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

If our sovereign bases are not defended against random boats landing we have other issues...

JonnyJimmy

Scott_P said:

JonnyJimmy said:

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

If our sovereign bases are not defended against random boats landing we have other issues...

Ok, what if a boat full of refugees is sinking near Akrotiri and within reach of a British ship? Do we let them drown?

GeoffM

Scott_P said:

JonnyJimmy said:

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

If our sovereign bases are not defended against random boats landing we have other issues...

It doesn't happen at this end of the Med either. Immigrants coming to the EU via Morocco head for Spain (Algeciras in particular around here) or try to get over the fences at the land borders in Ceuta and Melilla.

foxinsoxuk

JonnyJimmy said:

Scott_P said:

JonnyJimmy said:

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

If our sovereign bases are not defended against random boats landing we have other issues...

Ok, what if a boat full of refugees is sinking near Akrotiri and within reach of a British ship? Do we let them drown?

Implement the Australian system. The absence of the possibility of asylum in Australia has stopped the boats and therefore stopped the drownings.

The Australians persuaded PNG and Nauru to host detention centres. I would suggest that the EU makes arrangements with countries in Africa along the same lines.

edmundintokyo

Scott_P said:

Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.

This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.

Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?

If you're only on 30% and you get a majority on 35% then it may be worth pitching for the votes of people who aren't total arseholes, even if they make up a minority of the electorate.

Scott_P

JonnyJimmy said:

what if a boat full of refugees is sinking near Akrotiri and within reach of a British ship?

How many other landing sites or ships did they pass before sinking "within reach" of one of ours?

JonnyJimmy

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Scott_P said:

JonnyJimmy said:

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

If our sovereign bases are not defended against random boats landing we have other issues...

Ok, what if a boat full of refugees is sinking near Akrotiri and within reach of a British ship? Do we let them drown?

Implement the Australian system. The absence of the possibility of asylum in Australia has stopped the boats and therefore stopped the drownings.

The Australians persuaded PNG and Nauru to host detention centres. I would suggest that the EU makes arrangements with countries in Africa along the same lines.

Sounds sensible, but we're not the EU so we can't just magic an EU wide solution into existence. Until one is arranged there is the potential for the British government to have make decisions like these, and the implication of the original story seems to be that a Tory was saying we should let refugees drown in order to discourage further refugees.

I was just pointing out that we can't entirely dismiss it as a non-local problem, so it's a question that Cameron should be expected to answer.

JonnyJimmy

Scott_P said:

JonnyJimmy said:

what if a boat full of refugees is sinking near Akrotiri and within reach of a British ship?

How many other landing sites or ships did they pass before sinking "within reach" of one of ours?

I don't know. Do I need to find out before I rescue them?

OblitusSumMe

I would have thought that the big issue of the day was still the bill from the EU for €2.1bn.

Dave has been more than usually vague about this, with his formulation that he would not pay the full amount by December 1st, so Ed can surely make him uncomfortable, and the questions would for once be capable of being answered, if he concentrated on asking Cameron how much he will pay and when.

SimonStClare

I’m scratching my head as to when a 1% move in a poll generated a thread, let alone one using such gushing terms – was it sponsored by UNITE…?

MikeSmithson

edmundintokyo said:

Scott_P said:

Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.

This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.

Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?

If you're only on 30% and you get a majority on 35% then it may be worth pitching for the votes of people who aren't total arseholes, even if they make up a minority of the electorate.

Well said Edmund. There is a market in going for the "non-total arseholes" vote which I believe is bigger than you suggest.

foxinsoxuk

JonnyJimmy said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Scott_P said:

JonnyJimmy said:

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

If our sovereign bases are not defended against random boats landing we have other issues...

Ok, what if a boat full of refugees is sinking near Akrotiri and within reach of a British ship? Do we let them drown?

Implement the Australian system. The absence of the possibility of asylum in Australia has stopped the boats and therefore stopped the drownings.

The Australians persuaded PNG and Nauru to host detention centres. I would suggest that the EU makes arrangements with countries in Africa along the same lines.

Sounds sensible, but we're not the EU so we can't just magic an EU wide solution into existence. Until one is arranged there is the potential for the British government to have make decisions like these, and the implication of the original story seems to be that a Tory was saying we should let refugees drown in order to discourage further refugees.

I was just pointing out that we can't entirely dismiss it as a non-local problem, so it's a question that Cameron should be expected to answer.

If people need saving then they should be rescued, then returned to their country of origin or point of embarkation.

Encouraging people smugglers to overload unsafe vessels by assisting landings in the EU is not a good policy.

MikeSmithson

SimonStClare said:

I’m scratching my head as to when a 1% move in a poll generated a thread, let alone one using such gushing terms – was it sponsored by UNITE…?

If you don't like coming here then go elsewhere.

SquareRoot

OblitusSumMe said:

I would have thought that the big issue of the day was still the bill from the EU for €2.1bn.

Dave has been more than usually vague about this, with his formulation that he would not pay the full amount by December 1st, so Ed can surely make him uncomfortable, and the questions would for once be capable of being answered, if he concentrated on asking Cameron how much he will pay and when.

I feel sure that Ed batting for the EU will win loads of votes..

Socrates

OblitusSumMe said:

I would have thought that the big issue of the day was still the bill from the EU for €2.1bn.

Dave has been more than usually vague about this, with his formulation that he would not pay the full amount by December 1st, so Ed can surely make him uncomfortable, and the questions would for once be capable of being answered, if he concentrated on asking Cameron how much he will pay and when.

The obvious response to Ed is "Would you pay?"

JonnyJimmy

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Scott_P said:

JonnyJimmy said:

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

If our sovereign bases are not defended against random boats landing we have other issues...

Ok, what if a boat full of refugees is sinking near Akrotiri and within reach of a British ship? Do we let them drown?

Implement the Australian system. The absence of the possibility of asylum in Australia has stopped the boats and therefore stopped the drownings.

The Australians persuaded PNG and Nauru to host detention centres. I would suggest that the EU makes arrangements with countries in Africa along the same lines.

Sounds sensible, but we're not the EU so we can't just magic an EU wide solution into existence. Until one is arranged there is the potential for the British government to have make decisions like these, and the implication of the original story seems to be that a Tory was saying we should let refugees drown in order to discourage further refugees.

I was just pointing out that we can't entirely dismiss it as a non-local problem, so it's a question that Cameron should be expected to answer.

If people need saving then they should be rescued, then returned to their country of origin or point of embarkation.

Encouraging people smugglers to overload unsafe vessels by assisting landings in the EU is not a good policy.

Ok, so I've rescued them and have a load of women and girls, many pregnant having been raped by IS mobs, from Syria. You want me to send them home?

foxinsoxuk

SquareRoot said:

OblitusSumMe said:

I would have thought that the big issue of the day was still the bill from the EU for €2.1bn.

Dave has been more than usually vague about this, with his formulation that he would not pay the full amount by December 1st, so Ed can surely make him uncomfortable, and the questions would for once be capable of being answered, if he concentrated on asking Cameron how much he will pay and when.

I feel sure that Ed batting for the EU will win loads of votes..

The terms of the EU budget and its adjustments are a bit obscure, but go back to Labour giving up part of our rebate in return for CAP and other reforms. For Ed to re-open that sorry story of Tony and Gordons incompetence may not be very wise.

Scott_P

@Sun_Politics: Civil servants have lost track of tens of thousands of asylum seekers flocking to Britain for a new life: http://t.co/wbwXbpCIEU

Ed should definitely stand up at noon and demand that we go and collect more. Sure fire win. That'll shut up Cameron and Farage. No problem.

OblitusSumMe

There is a net swing of 5 poll respondents from Lab -> Con in the latest YouGov poll. This represents 1-in-100 of the Conservative 2015GE voting intention, so about 1/3 of a % point. Overlook the potential for direct Lab -> Conservative switching at your peril.

7% of Labour 2010: 34 lab -> con
5% of Conservative 2010: 29 con -> lab

foxinsoxuk

JonnyJimmy said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Scott_P said:

JonnyJimmy said:

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

If our sovereign bases are not defended against random boats landing we have other issues...

Ok, what if a boat full of refugees is sinking near Akrotiri and within reach of a British ship? Do we let them drown?

Implement the Australian system. The absence of the possibility of asylum in Australia has stopped the boats and therefore stopped the drownings.

The Australians persuaded PNG and Nauru to host detention centres. I would suggest that the EU makes arrangements with countries in Africa along the same lines.

Sounds sensible, but we're not the EU so we can't just magic an EU wide solution into existence. Until one is arranged there is the potential for the British government to have make decisions like these, and the implication of the original story seems to be that a Tory was saying we should let refugees drown in order to discourage further refugees.

I was just pointing out that we can't entirely dismiss it as a non-local problem, so it's a question that Cameron should be expected to answer.

If people need saving then they should be rescued, then returned to their country of origin or point of embarkation.

Encouraging people smugglers to overload unsafe vessels by assisting landings in the EU is not a good policy.

Ok, so I've rescued them and have a load of women and girls, many pregnant having been raped by IS mobs, from Syria. You want me to send them home?

That is not the sort of people on these boats. Such victims cannot afford the money to pay the smugglers. The vast majority on these boats are unaccompanied men.

Provide medical care, in an offshore medical centre, but with no entitlement to asylum in the EU. I have no problem with our ODA budget being used for these purposes in Egypt, or other parts of North Africa.

Casino_Royale

foxinsoxuk said:

Italy and the EU should perhaps learn from the Australian experience of six months with no boats:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/19/satisfied-australia-marks-six-months-no-boatpeople

Anyone attemting such means should either be towed back to their country of embarkation, or taken to an offshore assessment centre, but not allowed to enter the EU.

In the longer term the answer is for more economic and political opportunities in their own countries. That is what brought an end to the mass waves of european migration to the Americas, antipodes and elsewhere of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Abbot's reforms look interesting.

OblitusSumMe

Socrates said:

OblitusSumMe said:

I would have thought that the big issue of the day was still the bill from the EU for €2.1bn.

Dave has been more than usually vague about this, with his formulation that he would not pay the full amount by December 1st, so Ed can surely make him uncomfortable, and the questions would for once be capable of being answered, if he concentrated on asking Cameron how much he will pay and when.

The obvious response to Ed is "Would you pay?"

That would be relevant if this is still an issue in the election debates, but right now six questions of Miliband asking "How much will you pay and when?" will be uncomfortable for Cameron to answer.

Scott_P

@Sun_Politics: Immigration crucial make or break issue of voters' trust, says @tnewtondunn: http://t.co/0W5gvL5KmX

Is the "non-arsehole vote" really on the side of "we are so desperate for immigrants we should scour the Mediterranean Sea for more..."?

Scott_P

OblitusSumMe said:

right now six questions of Miliband asking "How much will you pay and when?" will be uncomfortable for Cameron to answer.

More uncomfortable for Miliband.

Labour gave away the rebate. Cameron cut the EU budget.

Only one of those is a happy story

RochdalePioneers

The Europeans are quoting arrangements made by the Major government as why we need to pay, the addition of whoring and snorting by Eurostat - as championed by Osborne as economic growth - is why we haven't paid enough. Plus we have the joyous Osborne knew for days and didn't tell Cameron angle.

But, pro-europeans (and I'm not one) need to be very careful because the obvious retort from Cameron is "would you pay" to which the legal response is "we have no choice". And Cameron will pay because Cameron is bound by treaty to pay regardless of his faux outrage.

But - and its a big but - a big bill will be spun as taking money off nurses or the sick (not that they were getting the money anyway), so politically its rather dangerous for Ed. When Farage is battering Cameron round the head with it why should Ed bother?

SquareRoot

Ed Miliband.. the EU's friend.. The Sun would love it

Scott_P

@Sun_Politics: EXCL: Blow for Miliband as Labour voters Ed over to Ukip in Rochester: http://t.co/XqClTzARxQ

Go for it Ed. Tell the voters you want more immigrants. What could possibly go wrong?

In other news, apparently Labour are launching a major immigration news blitz, with every shadow minister expected to make a speech. Is the opening salvo of that really Ed at PMQs asking for more?

Bold...

DavidL

Migrant soup is an almost classic left vs right issue. The government believe that large scale rescue programs positively encourage migrants to try and actually result in more drownings (since the rescue program is not that effective) as a result. Lefties understandably focus on the short term issue that there are people in the water who are going to die unless we do something.

I don't think the cruel to be kind line, however objectively justifiable, will sell so Ed may well get some traction.

Foxinsox is right that the correct way to disincentivise this kind of journey is to make it clear they will be returned, not the risk of drowning. This, however, requires a gearing up and efficiency of other Member States in the south of the EU that only an optimist would believe will ever happen. It also causes problems with the ECHR, specifically Article 3.

It is a lot easier for a country like Australia who are a ridiculously long way from anywhere.

OblitusSumMe

OblitusSumMe said:

There is a net swing of 5 poll respondents from Lab -> Con in the latest YouGov poll. This represents 1-in-100 of the Conservative 2015GE voting intention, so about 1/3 of a % point. Overlook the potential for direct Lab -> Conservative switching at your peril.

7% of Labour 2010: 34 lab -> con
5% of Conservative 2010: 29 con -> lab

Looks like a bit of a strange sample.

Tory support is equal in the 18-24 and 60+ age groups.

Conservatives lead by 35-31 among women and trail by 29-35 among men.

beast_in_black

3% margin of error. You really shouldnt micro analyise 1% swings here and there. Forest from the trees springs to mind....

Those migrants made that decision to come to Europe, we should tow them back and destroy the ship.

SimonStClare

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Scott_P said:

JonnyJimmy said:

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

If our sovereign bases are not defended against random boats landing we have other issues...

Ok, what if a boat full of refugees is sinking near Akrotiri and within reach of a British ship? Do we let them drown?

Implement the Australian system. The absence of the possibility of asylum in Australia has stopped the boats and therefore stopped the drownings.

The Australians persuaded PNG and Nauru to host detention centres. I would suggest that the EU makes arrangements with countries in Africa along the same lines.

Sounds like a very sensible solution to a problem. As we have seen in the past, the threat of drowning is clearly not preventing large numbers of desperate people attempting these crossings, perhaps an "Australian system" might.

Gadfly

Ed may be ahead once again, but the trend does not appear to his friend...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/bdmaxbobb0u2xh7/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014.jpg#

A 20-poll moving average suggests that this trend began well before the conference season...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2kz75v7pzf5fia2/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014 20-poll MA.jpg#

DavidL

beast_in_black said:

3% margin of error. You really shouldnt micro analyise 1% swings here and there. Forest from the trees springs to mind....

In fairness Mike acknowledges that point but makes the equally reasonable point that at this stage Labour need something, anything to restore morale or at least steady the ship.

Let's look at it this way: if there had been an equally statistically irrelevant Tory lead of 1% in this poll the pressure on Ed would have gone up another ratchet and the EIC meme in our media would have increased the volume.

Labour supporters are now grimly hanging on to the point that Mike made yesterday: that until and unless the Tory lead is 6% they will gain seats. I think they are wrong about that but that is another story.

felix

Seems like a great issue to energise the sandal wearers of the left. Will it lead labour back to 35%? The fact that this is the question tells us how far we've moved in just a few months. It is also very definitely a QTWTAIN!

Labour remain with nothing to say on all the big questions of the day - and apparently it's a good idea that they presage their big crackdown on immigration with a PMQ effort to help bring immigrants from the Mediterranean to first Europe and then - who knows (ask the Mayor of Calais) - onto the UK. I really don't think so.

OldKingCole

DavidL said:

Migrant soup is an almost classic left vs right issue. The government believe that large scale rescue programs positively encourage migrants to try and actually result in more drownings (since the rescue program is not that effective) as a result. Lefties understandably focus on the short term issue that there are people in the water who are going to die unless we do something.

I don't think the cruel to be kind line, however objectively justifiable, will sell so Ed may well get some traction.

Foxinsox is right that the correct way to disincentivise this kind of journey is to make it clear they will be returned, not the risk of drowning. This, however, requires a gearing up and efficiency of other Member States in the south of the EU that only an optimist would believe will ever happen. It also causes problems with the ECHR, specifically Article 3.

It is a lot easier for a country like Australia who are a ridiculously long way from anywhere.

Australia also have a number of islands reasonably nearby which can be used. Where would one site similar camps, either on Meditereanian or Atlantic islands or on the N African coast?

SquareRoot

How many arguments at PMq's this side of the election is Ed likely to be on the right side of .. The future looks grim for Ed.. as he has no policies bar to oppose.

OblitusSumMe

Gadfly said:

Ed may be ahead once again, but the trend does not appear to his friend...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/bdmaxbobb0u2xh7/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014.jpg#

A 20-poll moving average suggests that this trend began well before the conference season...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2kz75v7pzf5fia2/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014 20-poll MA.jpg#

Labour seems to have taken a hit from the Carswell defection, which is a bit counter-intuitive.

DavidL

If I was Ed I would concentrate on desk thumping Dave, Mr Angry about something his government should and probably did anticipate months before that performance. Not his finest hour and a real chance to do damage to the Dave brand which is still so important to the Tories.

There are counters, as others have pointed out, but the target is not the EU or the money. It is Dave himself and his credibility. Partisans on one side or the other on here already have strong views on this. Joe Public not so much.

SquareRoot

Free erections in Wales...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11193588/Tesco-offers-free-erections-on-Welsh-sign.html

felix

OblitusSumMe said:

Gadfly said:

Ed may be ahead once again, but the trend does not appear to his friend...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/bdmaxbobb0u2xh7/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014.jpg#

A 20-poll moving average suggests that this trend began well before the conference season...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2kz75v7pzf5fia2/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014 20-poll MA.jpg#

Labour seems to have taken a hit from the Carswell defection, which is a bit counter-intuitive.

I deplore the rise of UKIP - but I recognise where most of their voters are coming from. Too many politicians don't and this is particularly the case in the left-wing spectrum from Clegg through to Clarke and on to Miliband. their 'liberal' middle-class sympathies are offended by the fact that a large chunk of the British people take a different view than the current establishment norms. They can barely disguise their contempt for the sort of voters who lean to UKIP - it shows horribly and it is fuelling daily the rise in UKIP support.

MikeSmithson

OblitusSumMe said:

There is a net swing of 5 poll respondents from Lab -> Con in the latest YouGov poll. This represents 1-in-100 of the Conservative 2015GE voting intention, so about 1/3 of a % point. Overlook the potential for direct Lab -> Conservative switching at your peril.

7% of Labour 2010: 34 lab -> con
5% of Conservative 2010: 29 con -> lab

If you want to micro analysis like this then use the aggregates with 10k+ samples like you get from Lord A. Doing this on one YouGov poll won't tell you anything that's meaningful.

david_herdson

"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med. This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well."

The LD-Lab switchers are only *one* key swing group. Two others, of more recent vintage but of growing importance, are Con-UKIP and Lab-UKIP. Labour's stance will not play so well there, though those opposed to it will have to be careful as to how to do so.

Sean_F

The best thing that Labour can say about immigration/asylum is nothing at all.

RochdalePioneers

What some of you appear not to be considering is that UKIP exist and score well. Labour a few points ahead of the Tories in a 3 party system would not be good. Labour a few points ahead with the kippers in town is OK.

Remember the basics. National poll percentages does not translate into seats won, especially with an extra party in the mix. A strong UKIP vote splits the Tory vote across the south and I expect that they will pick up a tranche of seats. In others Labour will get back in as the right splits. In Labour seats in he north I expect UKIP will pick up a couple, but in the rest Labour get a reduced majority.

FPTP is a joke. Has been for years. As you will now witness where Labour gets a working majority with less than a third of the vote. Perhaps then the outrage will be enough to get a proportional electoral system?

MikeSmithson

david_herdson said:

"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med. This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well."

The LD-Lab switchers are only *one* key swing group. Two others, of more recent vintage but of growing importance, are Con-UKIP and Lab-UKIP. Labour's stance will not play so well there, though those opposed to it will have to be careful as to how to do so.

Agreed. But you remain in denial about the LD switchers which represents a bigger move than the increase in CON vote from GE97 to GE10.

I know you find this tedious but it happens to be correct.

Socrates

Sean_F said:

The best thing that Labour can say about immigration/asylum is nothing at all.

I disagree. It's too big an issue for them to hope it goes away. They need something when it's brought up on the doorstep. They need to commit to not reversing the Coalition's restrictions, and also to support measures which would reduce it further (that aren't just tinkering). They have a terrible record, and won't outflank UKIP, but if they can outflank the Tories on it, then they can hold their own.

logical_song

RochdalePioneers said:

What some of you appear not to be considering is that UKIP exist and score well. Labour a few points ahead of the Tories in a 3 party system would not be good. Labour a few points ahead with the kippers in town is OK.

Remember the basics. National poll percentages does not translate into seats won, especially with an extra party in the mix. A strong UKIP vote splits the Tory vote across the south and I expect that they will pick up a tranche of seats. In others Labour will get back in as the right splits. In Labour seats in he north I expect UKIP will pick up a couple, but in the rest Labour get a reduced majority.

FPTP is a joke. Has been for years. As you will now witness where Labour gets a working majority with less than a third of the vote. Perhaps then the outrage will be enough to get a proportional electoral system?

We've had 35% and 36% with no real backing for a change in FPTP (you could even say it was endorsed in the referendum, if you wanted to be awkward), so why should a further drop to 32% or 33% do the trick?
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm

Millsy

Will be very revealing whether Miliband does go on this issue at PMQs. Immigration is such a difficult issue to discuss [at the moment?] (too polarised and characterised).

audreyanne

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives. I've spent some time listening to people in various hot spots. I didn't actually realise we have been letting anyone in the EU arrive willy nilly. There is no doubt at all that some places are being swamped by migrants, especially from eastern Europe. There's no point dressing this up any other way.

So, in answer to the thread header: every time immigration rears its head the Conservatives seem to be pegged back. I think Labour is also suffering, to a slightly lesser extent.

At GE2015 how much will immigration really play? I don't know, but I do know that it is seriously vexing a lot of people in some pockets around the country.

another_richard

Nine weeks after the Rotherham report and these questions still remain unanswered:

1) Why hasn't Home Secretary Theresa May taken action against the South Yorkshire police after the widespread reports of its collaboration with child rapists.

2) Why hasn't Childrens Minister Edward Timpson placed Rotherham Childrens Services into special measures.

3) What action is Policing Minister Mike Penning taking to ensure that the police's much publicised 'day of reckoning' with its 'wave after wave of arrests' takes place.

4) How much did the locally well connected former Communities Minister Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and what did she chose to do about it.

5) Why has Prime Minister David Cameron shown no interest despite his emphasis on 'Broken Britain' while leader of the opposition.

Sean_F

RochdalePioneers said:

What some of you appear not to be considering is that UKIP exist and score well. Labour a few points ahead of the Tories in a 3 party system would not be good. Labour a few points ahead with the kippers in town is OK.

Remember the basics. National poll percentages does not translate into seats won, especially with an extra party in the mix. A strong UKIP vote splits the Tory vote across the south and I expect that they will pick up a tranche of seats. In others Labour will get back in as the right splits. In Labour seats in he north I expect UKIP will pick up a couple, but in the rest Labour get a reduced majority.

FPTP is a joke. Has been for years. As you will now witness where Labour gets a working majority with less than a third of the vote. Perhaps then the outrage will be enough to get a proportional electoral system?

In working class Southern seats, I think it's more likely UKIP will siphon off many of the swing voters that Labour needs to win. Labour can win without gaining seats in Kent or Essex, but it becomes a dangerously narrow path to victory.

SimonStClare

Andrew Green, former diplomat and founder of MigrationWatch has a goodish article in the Telegraph this morning.

“It’s about time we talked about immigration . . .”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11193707/Its-about-time-we-talked-about-immigration....html

rottenborough

Morning all,

Be difficult for Ed to stay away from immigration and asylum today given the front pages and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on backlogs and computer problems.

Sean_F

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

The best thing that Labour can say about immigration/asylum is nothing at all.

I disagree. It's too big an issue for them to hope it goes away. They need something when it's brought up on the doorstep. They need to commit to not reversing the Coalition's restrictions, and also to support measures which would reduce it further (that aren't just tinkering). They have a terrible record, and won't outflank UKIP, but if they can outflank the Tories on it, then they can hold their own.

Well, they're between a rock and a hard place.

audreyanne

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med. This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well."

The LD-Lab switchers are only *one* key swing group. Two others, of more recent vintage but of growing importance, are Con-UKIP and Lab-UKIP. Labour's stance will not play so well there, though those opposed to it will have to be careful as to how to do so.

Agreed. But you remain in denial about the LD switchers which represents a bigger move than the increase in CON vote from GE97 to GE10.

I know you find this tedious but it happens to be correct.

Sorry Mike, I'm with David on this. You're hanging all your clothes on a single peg and that's rarely right in any field. We should be wary of simplistic solutions, and psephologically your LD switcher peg is over-simplistic.

Pulpstar

Gadfly said:

Ed may be ahead once again, but the trend does not appear to his friend...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/bdmaxbobb0u2xh7/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014.jpg#

A 20-poll moving average suggests that this trend began well before the conference season...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2kz75v7pzf5fia2/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014 20-poll MA.jpg#

Labour -> UKIP switching, the Tories have gone nowhere.

Sean_F

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med. This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well."

The LD-Lab switchers are only *one* key swing group. Two others, of more recent vintage but of growing importance, are Con-UKIP and Lab-UKIP. Labour's stance will not play so well there, though those opposed to it will have to be careful as to how to do so.

Agreed. But you remain in denial about the LD switchers which represents a bigger move than the increase in CON vote from GE97 to GE10.

I know you find this tedious but it happens to be correct.

Labour doesn't have a problem with the switchers. Their problem lies with a lot of the people who supported them in 2010.

___Bobajob___

audreyanne said:

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med. This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well."

The LD-Lab switchers are only *one* key swing group. Two others, of more recent vintage but of growing importance, are Con-UKIP and Lab-UKIP. Labour's stance will not play so well there, though those opposed to it will have to be careful as to how to do so.

Agreed. But you remain in denial about the LD switchers which represents a bigger move than the increase in CON vote from GE97 to GE10.

I know you find this tedious but it happens to be correct.

Sorry Mike, I'm with David on this. You're hanging all your clothes on a single peg and that's rarely right in any field. We should be wary of simplistic solutions, and psephologically your LD switcher peg is over-simplistic.

The next election is all about the Red Liberals and the Purple Tories. Keep your eye on those groups would be my advice.

rottenborough

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med. This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well."

The LD-Lab switchers are only *one* key swing group. Two others, of more recent vintage but of growing importance, are Con-UKIP and Lab-UKIP. Labour's stance will not play so well there, though those opposed to it will have to be careful as to how to do so.

Agreed. But you remain in denial about the LD switchers which represents a bigger move than the increase in CON vote from GE97 to GE10.

I know you find this tedious but it happens to be correct.

It would also be odd, now, after so long, for Ed to abandon the 35% strategy, which seems mainly predicated on the core vote and the LD switchers dragging him across the winning line.

The Lab-UKIP core vote loss might turn out to be a problem, unclear at the moment, as it may just depress winning margins in non-marginal labour seats in the north.

Lab-SNP switchers are the ones that should be keeping Ed awake at nights.

___Bobajob___

JonnyJimmy said:

Scott_P said:

JonnyJimmy said:

What if they land here? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas

If our sovereign bases are not defended against random boats landing we have other issues...

Ok, what if a boat full of refugees is sinking near Akrotiri and within reach of a British ship? Do we let them drown?

No. Well said. Time for Ed/Dave to show some compassion and not get dragged to the hard right with the frothers.

___Bobajob___

SimonStClare said:

Andrew Green, former diplomat and founder of MigrationWatch has a goodish article in the Telegraph this morning.

“It’s about time we talked about immigration . . .”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11193707/Its-about-time-we-talked-about-immigration....html

We seem to talk about nothing else these days

another_richard

audreyanne said:

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives. I've spent some time listening to people in various hot spots. I didn't actually realise we have been letting anyone in the EU arrive willy nilly. There is no doubt at all that some places are being swamped by migrants, especially from eastern Europe. There's no point dressing this up any other way.

You must have inhabited very refined bubbles, both in real life and on the internet, not to have realised that.

I wonder how many other people still think that.

Sean_F

Pulpstar said:

Gadfly said:

Ed may be ahead once again, but the trend does not appear to his friend...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/bdmaxbobb0u2xh7/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014.jpg#

A 20-poll moving average suggests that this trend began well before the conference season...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2kz75v7pzf5fia2/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014 20-poll MA.jpg#

Labour -> UKIP switching, the Tories have gone nowhere.

There's probably a lot of churn. Lab-Con switchers are matched by Con-UKIP switchers.

Pulpstar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29805830

Lol

"The Home Office is facing a fresh backlog of asylum cases, on top of 30,000 unresolved applications dating back to 2007, MPs have warned.

The Public Accounts Committee said the number of new asylum seekers awaiting an initial decision on their status rose 70% in the first quarter of 2014.

Contact was lost with 50,000 people refused the right to stay, it added. "

No wonder UKIP is on the rise.

audreyanne

another_richard said:

audreyanne said:

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives. I've spent some time listening to people in various hot spots. I didn't actually realise we have been letting anyone in the EU arrive willy nilly. There is no doubt at all that some places are being swamped by migrants, especially from eastern Europe. There's no point dressing this up any other way.

You must have inhabited very refined bubbles, both in real life and on the internet, not to have realised that.

I wonder how many other people still think that.

I've been abroad.

CD13

Briefly watching a tedious review of the papers last night, one of the waffling reviewers finally made a good point.

How do our welfare and health provisions compare with the rest of Europe? Is that the reason for them to come several thousand miles and trek across Europe?

It can't be that we speak English because few of the immigrants do. And the Danes, for instance, speak better English than I do.

But if a ship is at risk, you must rescue them, obviously. And take them back to their point of origin.

___Bobajob___

felix said:

Seems like a great issue to energise the sandal wearers of the left. Will it lead labour back to 35%? The fact that this is the question tells us how far we've moved in just a few months. It is also very definitely a QTWTAIN!

Labour remain with nothing to say on all the big questions of the day - and apparently it's a good idea that they presage their big crackdown on immigration with a PMQ effort to help bring immigrants from the Mediterranean to first Europe and then - who knows (ask the Mayor of Calais) - onto the UK. I really don't think so.

Very confident forecast. Noted.

The nightmare scenario for the Tories is that issues like this cement in the Red Liberals and fail to pull back enough Purple Tories. Perfect storm.

chestnut

audreyanne said:

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives.

There isn't a cigarette wrapper of difference between the Tories and UKIP on what they really want, immigration wise.

The debate is entirely about how it's achieved and how quickly it needs to be done.

A Tory seat going UKIP, isn't a loss in the way that a Tory seat going Labour is.

Gadfly

Pulpstar said:

Gadfly said:

Ed may be ahead once again, but the trend does not appear to his friend...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/bdmaxbobb0u2xh7/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014.jpg#

A 20-poll moving average suggests that this trend began well before the conference season...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2kz75v7pzf5fia2/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014 20-poll MA.jpg#

Labour -> UKIP switching, the Tories have gone nowhere.

My 20-poll moving average chart certainly seems to suggest this. It also indicates that further UKIP support is counter-intuitively coming from the LibDems.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2kz75v7pzf5fia2/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014 20-poll MA.jpg#

Itajai

Scott_P said:

Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.

This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.

Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?

The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.

Pulpstar

chestnut said:

audreyanne said:

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives.

There isn't a cigarette wrapper of difference between the Tories and UKIP on what they really want, immigration wise.

The debate is entirely about how it's achieved and how quickly it needs to be done.

A Tory seat going UKIP, isn't a loss in the way that a Tory seat going Labour is.

The debate in UKIP is whether to stay in the EEA or not, the debate in CON is whether to stay in the EU. The debate in Labour is "How much jam would you like on entering the country"

Sean_F

I don'

CD13 said:

Briefly watching a tedious review of the papers last night, one of the waffling reviewers finally made a good point.

How do our welfare and health provisions compare with the rest of Europe? Is that the reason for them to come several thousand miles and trek across Europe?

It can't be that we speak English because few of the immigrants do. And the Danes, for instance, speak better English than I do.

But if a ship is at risk, you must rescue them, obviously. And take them back to their point of origin.

I don't think our benefits are particularly generous. But, I do think the French have reached snapping point over illegal immigrants (they might be about to elect FN). So, that would be a significant push factor for people to want to get into the UK.

Scott_P

@IsabelHardman: Ukip source: 'I would bet on us getting within 5,000 of Ed Miliband in Doncaster.’ http://t.co/cx45TTno0W

Yup, Ed should definitely defend immigration at PMQs

MikeSmithson

Itajai said:

Scott_P said:

Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.

This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.

Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?

The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.

I think the same could be said about you but this time with some truth.

SouthamObserver

Itajai said:

Scott_P said:

Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.

This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.

Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?

The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.



My guess is that wanting to save desperate people from drowning is a trait that goes well beyond the left. I could be wrong though. Clearly you have a problem with it.

OldKingCole

chestnut said:

audreyanne said:

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives.

There isn't a cigarette wrapper of difference between the Tories and UKIP on what they really want, immigration wise.

The debate is entirely about how it's achieved and how quickly it needs to be done.

A Tory seat going UKIP, isn't a loss in the way that a Tory seat going Labour is.

Look what happened to the Ulster Unionists when the harder line populist DUP appeared!

chestnut

OblitusSumMe said:

There is a net swing of 5 poll respondents from Lab -> Con in the latest YouGov poll. This represents 1-in-100 of the Conservative 2015GE voting intention, so about 1/3 of a % point. Overlook the potential for direct Lab -> Conservative switching at your peril.

7% of Labour 2010: 34 lab -> con
5% of Conservative 2010: 29 con -> labLooks like a bit of a strange sample.

Indeed.

Over the last 10 yougov:

Tory-Lab 3.7%
Lab-Tory 5%

Also worth looking at just how many LDs are jumping to the polar opposites of Green/UKIP.

Last 10

Lab 30.8
UKIP/Green 25.7 - I'd assume different demographics in different places.


Populus has lower numbers, but Populus seems to believe that people won't jump ships across it's range of outcomes, whereas almost all others are saying something different.

MikeSmithson

chestnut said:

audreyanne said:

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives.

There isn't a cigarette wrapper of difference between the Tories and UKIP on what they really want, immigration wise.

The debate is entirely about how it's achieved and how quickly it needs to be done.

A Tory seat going UKIP, isn't a loss in the way that a Tory seat going Labour is.

In the recent Ashcroft CON-LAB marginals polling (sample 11k) for every five UKIP voters wanting a CON government as their preferred GE15 outcome four said a LAB one.

The idea that kippers are all Tories on holiday is nonsense.

Itajai

felix said:

Seems like a great issue to energise the sandal wearers of the left. Will it lead labour back to 35%? The fact that this is the question tells us how far we've moved in just a few months. It is also very definitely a QTWTAIN!

Labour remain with nothing to say on all the big questions of the day - and apparently it's a good idea that they presage their big crackdown on immigration with a PMQ effort to help bring immigrants from the Mediterranean to first Europe and then - who knows (ask the Mayor of Calais) - onto the UK. I really don't think so.

Ed is making up for lost time. He forgot to mention immigration in his big speech too. Now he can make up for it and say he wants more immigration. He even has prospective MPs who believe such immigrants should get social housing over local people if their "needs" are greater.

Pulpstar

Gadfly said:

Pulpstar said:

Gadfly said:

Ed may be ahead once again, but the trend does not appear to his friend...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/bdmaxbobb0u2xh7/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014.jpg#

A 20-poll moving average suggests that this trend began well before the conference season...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2kz75v7pzf5fia2/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014 20-poll MA.jpg#

Labour -> UKIP switching, the Tories have gone nowhere.

My 20-poll moving average chart certainly seems to suggest this. It also indicates that further UKIP support is counter-intuitively coming from the LibDems.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2kz75v7pzf5fia2/12-month YouGov 29 October 2014 20-poll MA.jpg#

Yep - this sort of analysis is one I pay attention to as a punter and why I recently traded my Lab Majority potential profits off against my Con Majority liabilities.

My various Miliband/Balls bets are still decent though as Labour could well get largest party still.

Con winning the vote share, Labour the seat share should be the best outcome for alot of us here though - betting wise.

Monksfield

foxinsoxuk said:

Italy and the EU should perhaps learn from the Australian experience of six months with no boats:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/19/satisfied-australia-marks-six-months-no-boatpeople

Anyone attemting such means should either be towed back to their country of embarkation, or taken to an offshore assessment centre, but not allowed to enter the EU.

In the longer term the answer is for more economic and political opportunities in their own countries. That is what brought an end to the mass waves of european migration to the Americas, antipodes and elsewhere of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Entirely agree with this. Somehow, we have to persuade people at source that there is little point in leaving and try to ensure that aid and the like is directed at creating better life opportunities in their own country. Not selling them defence systems they don't need.

Monksfield

Itajai said:

felix said:

Seems like a great issue to energise the sandal wearers of the left. Will it lead labour back to 35%? The fact that this is the question tells us how far we've moved in just a few months. It is also very definitely a QTWTAIN!

Labour remain with nothing to say on all the big questions of the day - and apparently it's a good idea that they presage their big crackdown on immigration with a PMQ effort to help bring immigrants from the Mediterranean to first Europe and then - who knows (ask the Mayor of Calais) - onto the UK. I really don't think so.

Ed is making up for lost time. He forgot to mention immigration in his big speech too. Now he can make up for it and say he wants more immigration. He even has prospective MPs who believe such immigrants should get social housing over local people if their "needs" are greater.

Evidence?

JonnyJimmy

MikeSmithson said:

chestnut said:

audreyanne said:

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives.

There isn't a cigarette wrapper of difference between the Tories and UKIP on what they really want, immigration wise.

The debate is entirely about how it's achieved and how quickly it needs to be done.

A Tory seat going UKIP, isn't a loss in the way that a Tory seat going Labour is.

In the recent Ashcroft CON-LAB marginals polling (sample 11k) for every five UKIP voters wanting a CON government as their preferred GE15 outcome four said a LAB one.

The idea that kippers are all Tories on holiday is nonsense.

Of course it is, but the idea that the Tory-Kipper switchers could be Tories on holiday might not be.

And I'm quite happy to be blatantly two faced about UKIP. I'll hate and condemn them where they're hurting the Tories, and love and laud them where it's Labour losing out.

I'm not sure how these two outcomes are best achieved, but you pointing out that Lab is losing to UKIP as well doesn't make me despair!

Monksfield

MikeSmithson said:

chestnut said:

audreyanne said:

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives.

There isn't a cigarette wrapper of difference between the Tories and UKIP on what they really want, immigration wise.

The debate is entirely about how it's achieved and how quickly it needs to be done.

A Tory seat going UKIP, isn't a loss in the way that a Tory seat going Labour is.

In the recent Ashcroft CON-LAB marginals polling (sample 11k) for every five UKIP voters wanting a CON government as their preferred GE15 outcome four said a LAB one.

The idea that kippers are all Tories on holiday is nonsense.

Absolutely, both parties have declined from core vote shares of 40 plus to the low 30s over the last 30 years. And bizarrely PBTories seem to think this is only a problem for Labour.

BenM

Scott_P said:

Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.

This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.

Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?

There is a swathe of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this.

The type of people who for years have been voting tactically in marginals to keep obnoxious Tories out - the kind of people who think Tory theories about what drives humans to do stuff are utterly bonkers.

The type of people who keep the Tory poll share languishing only just above 30% even when Labour are seemingly shedding votes.

Itajai

Pulpstar said:

chestnut said:

audreyanne said:

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives.

There isn't a cigarette wrapper of difference between the Tories and UKIP on what they really want, immigration wise.

The debate is entirely about how it's achieved and how quickly it needs to be done.

A Tory seat going UKIP, isn't a loss in the way that a Tory seat going Labour is.

The debate in UKIP is whether to stay in the EEA or not, the debate in CON is whether to stay in the EU. The debate in Labour is "How much jam would you like on entering the country"

"...so long as you vote Labour. We even help you import your extended family if you promise."

Blue_rog

foxinsoxuk said:

Italy and the EU should perhaps learn from the Australian experience of six months with no boats:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/19/satisfied-australia-marks-six-months-no-boatpeople

Anyone attemting such means should either be towed back to their country of embarkation, or taken to an offshore assessment centre, but not allowed to enter the EU.

In the longer term the answer is for more economic and political opportunities in their own countries. That is what brought an end to the mass waves of european migration to the Americas, antipodes and elsewhere of the 19th and 20th centuries.

I wonder how long it will be before the 'Soylent Green' option is discussed.

felix

SouthamObserver said:

Itajai said:

Scott_P said:

Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.

This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.

Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?

The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.

My guess is that wanting to save desperate people from drowning is a trait that goes well beyond the left. I could be wrong though. Clearly you have a problem with it.



When the guardianistas et al show the same outrage over the child abuse issues in Rotherham/Manchester/Rochdale, etc as over this issue maybe you will have a point and can move beyond snide point scoring.

Itajai

MikeSmithson said:

Itajai said:

Scott_P said:

Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.

This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.

Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?

The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.

I think the same could be said about you but this time with some truth.



I actually read the Grauniad every day! First thing too.
Doesn't mean I agree with any of it though!

chestnut

MikeSmithson said:

The idea that kippers are all Tories on holiday is nonsense.

The point that was made was about immigration policy, not party identity.

UKIP policy and Tory policy on many things is fag-wrapper wide.

UKIP will suffer the same fate as the Lib Dems in time when it becomes obvious what a disparate bunch they really are.

Look at the way the LD vote has splintered. It's going all over the place which suggests no commonality of belief ever really existed.

CD13

Dr Fox,Monksfield,

I agree. I fully support the budget for International aid being protected, hopefully targeted as far as if possible. Even if I pay an extra penny on income tax.

People who shout that "something must be done" often mean that somebody else must do something so that I can feel good about myself.

Itajai

SouthamObserver said:

Itajai said:

Scott_P said:

Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.

This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.

Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?

The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.

My guess is that wanting to save desperate people from drowning is a trait that goes well beyond the left. I could be wrong though. Clearly you have a problem with it.



I am pretty sure the thought of illegal economic migrants drowning on their way to Europe does not keep you awake at night.

Socrates

another_richard said:

audreyanne said:

Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives. I've spent some time listening to people in various hot spots. I didn't actually realise we have been letting anyone in the EU arrive willy nilly. There is no doubt at all that some places are being swamped by migrants, especially from eastern Europe. There's no point dressing this up any other way.

You must have inhabited very refined bubbles, both in real life and on the internet, not to have realised that.

I wonder how many other people still think that.

If you're wealthy and work in consulting, law or finance, you get in your taxi with a foreign driver each morning, work with well integrated skilled foreigners each day, eat at the trendy new restaurant with ethnic cuisine at lunch, and come back home to your foreign au pair and cleaner in the evening. You get a completely different image of immigration to people who struggle to get a job at the Polish owned construction firm that has undercut all the British ones, deal with Romanian beggars on your way home, struggle to communicate at the Lithuanian supermarket that replaced the local butcher and grocer, and see a gang of Pakistani youths hanging out around the young girls outside your house.

chestnut

Monksfield said:

Absolutely, both parties have declined from core vote shares of 40 plus to the low 30s over the last 30 years. And bizarrely PBTories seem to think this is only a problem for Labour.

If nearly as many Kippers want a Labour government as a Tory government, does it not suggest that there are actually as many lapsed, unconvinced Labourites in there as Tory defectors?

Yet people constantly suggest the Tories are losing votes exponentially to UKIP.

The constant referencing of the 2010 vote is greatly to blame for misunderstanding who these people are and where they were politically pre-2004, back in the 1990s and so on.

Socrates

Monksfield said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Italy and the EU should perhaps learn from the Australian experience of six months with no boats:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/19/satisfied-australia-marks-six-months-no-boatpeople

Anyone attemting such means should either be towed back to their country of embarkation, or taken to an offshore assessment centre, but not allowed to enter the EU.

In the longer term the answer is for more economic and political opportunities in their own countries. That is what brought an end to the mass waves of european migration to the Americas, antipodes and elsewhere of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Entirely agree with this. Somehow, we have to persuade people at source that there is little point in leaving and try to ensure that aid and the like is directed at creating better life opportunities in their own country. Not selling them defence systems they don't need.

Offshore processing is the answer. What's the point of a dangerous Med crossing if you just get taken back to a north African centre anyway? It would both reduce illegal immigration and save lives.

Innocent_Abroad

CD13 said:

Briefly watching a tedious review of the papers last night, one of the waffling reviewers finally made a good point.

How do our welfare and health provisions compare with the rest of Europe? Is that the reason for them to come several thousand miles and trek across Europe?

It can't be that we speak English because few of the immigrants do. And the Danes, for instance, speak better English than I do.

But if a ship is at risk, you must rescue them, obviously. And take them back to their point of origin.

I've been told that it's because people see the UK as a stepping-stone to the USA - possibly via Canada. How much truth there is in this I know not.