@iainjwatson: Now @ukip leader Nigel Farage says no caps and targets on immigration on #r4today - but thinks numbers would be less than 50,000
So, no caps on immigration this week, criticising Enoch Powell last week.
That's the afternoon thread sorted.
"Have Farage and UKIP become part of the Liberal LabLibCan Metropolitan Elite with these new policies?"
The Australian style points system gives more than twice the percapita immigration rate of the UK.
Australia has a third the population of the UK, so two thirds of the actual immigration.
How does that work out as immigrants per square kilometre of land (clue, Australia is 7 MILLION square metres of land, the UK is less than quarter of one million, so about a 30th of the size)
No. Australia has as many annual immigrants as us, but about a 1/3 of our population.
Australia is vast, but these migrants are not living in the outback. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world and migration is putting the same strain on their pre existing population as on ours.
So far as I can see no developed economy has managed to get immigration down to the level that Farage or Cameron propose apart from Japan.
Is the plan to ban foreign spouses of British nationals? Deport all asylum seekers on arrival irrespective of their history? Deport all students as soon as their course finishes? Refuse permission for the 10 million UK nationals living outside the country from returning. These are the sorts of policies required to get net migration down to the tens of thousands.
And yet, the UK managed to do so, from 1962-1997, when the economy grew more rapidly than subsequently.
Surely that was down to the huge exodus of luvvies fleeing Fatcha?
More likely the "Brain drain", thousands of our brightest and our best fleeing Ed Balls Healey.
@iainjwatson: Now @ukip leader Nigel Farage says no caps and targets on immigration on #r4today - but thinks numbers would be less than 50,000
So, no caps on immigration this week, criticising Enoch Powell last week.
That's the afternoon thread sorted.
"Have Farage and UKIP become part of the Liberal LabLibCan Metropolitan Elite with these new policies?"
The Australian style points system gives more than twice the percapita immigration rate of the UK.
Australia has a third the population of the UK, so two thirds of the actual immigration.
How does that work out as immigrants per square kilometre of land (clue, Australia is 7 MILLION square metres of land, the UK is less than quarter of one million, so about a 30th of the size)
No. Australia has as many annual immigrants as us, but about a 1/3 of our population.
Australia is vast, but these migrants are not living in the outback. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world and migration is putting the same strain on their pre existing population as on ours.
So far as I can see no developed economy has managed to get immigration down to the level that Farage or Cameron propose apart from Japan.
Is the plan to ban foreign spouses of British nationals? Deport all asylum seekers on arrival irrespective of their history? Deport all students as soon as their course finishes? Refuse permission for the 10 million UK nationals living outside the country from returning. These are the sorts of policies required to get net migration down to the tens of thousands.
And yet, the UK managed to do so, from 1962-1997, when the economy grew more rapidly than subsequently.
In the 1980s there were periods of net emigration, but those days are gone (short of Bennett as PM).
Patterns of migration into Scandanavia (Norway being a non EU example) and EU countries, as well as Switzerland, USA, Canada, Australia and NZ all show similar ilor larger surges of immigration than us.
Even the basket case of Greece has had a million immigrants (with base population of 15 million) over last two decades.
On immigration: I would start by deporting existing illegals and overstayers and failed asylum seekers. Until we have a functioning system for doing this there is no point in changing policy. Writing new rules when existing rules are not enforced is whistling in the wind.
@Aiannucci: UKIP were going to publish their manifesto last week. Anyone know what happened to it?
Farage just said on Radio 4 that he expects to have the manifesto publishedin April, after the others have been published.
The problem seems to be a shortage of fag packets for him to write it on.
Are the LDs going to have a manifesto, or will Mr Clegg just say 'trust me'?
I think the party with the hardest challenge on writing its manifesto is Labour. Ed has done a super job of keeping the party together by avoiding policy at all costs. But he's going to have to commit something to paper. It is frankly incredible that after years as leader and with only 2 months to go we still all have no idea really what a Labour administration would do. The second the Labour manifesto is published its going to upset some of their own and be wide open to attack from the other parties.
Its entirely possible we are going to see a "warm words" manifesto, which is a load of good knocking copy against the Tories and Kippers, sounds warm and comforting, says "fairness" every third word, but doesn't actually commit them to very much.
If Ed goes down that route, it will be as well received as his last conference speech - ie, panned by all sides of the political spectrum.
Maybe the Labour manifesto will 'forget' to mention the deficit and what they plan in broad terms to do about it...
Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...
It's the return of the green tories
The Conservatives' 5-day lead with Yougov is 1.2%. Yougov is now in line with the phone polls (albeit with a highish UKIP score).
Buy, without wishing to spoil the party, it could be a blip, and we have TNS to come.
Mr Cameron seems to have made a strong statement on child protection, as a response to Rotherham/ Oxford etc.
I could see that giving a veto-gasm type polling boost. With the election approaching they could have the promised legislation as part of their election platform rather than folding the way they did with the veto.
"...the government plans to make it a criminal offence to wilfully neglect those at risk of, and victims of, child sexual abuse.
Yet these proposals are only going out to consultation. There will be further reports to come and committee recommendations sought ahead of any legislation being brought before parliament for a vote."
Social workers, education practitioners and local councillors would be covered by the sanction, which would be introduced as an extension of the crime of wilful neglect of patients by care workers in this year’s Criminal Justice and Courts Act.
Bit like FGM, then!!!!
Passing new laws, however well meaning they are, is pointless unless they're going to be enforced.
There's no shortage of action that could taken against plods, social workers etc who tolerate and sometimes collaborate with child rapists under existing legislation.
But the public services are infinitely more concerned about protecting themselves rather than the vulnerable children they are legally bound to protect.
Twenty-seven weeks after the Jay report how many Rotherham plods, social workers, children's home managers, councillors and council officials have been arrested ?
I believe the answer is zero, zero, zero, zero and zero.
@iainjwatson: Now @ukip leader Nigel Farage says no caps and targets on immigration on #r4today - but thinks numbers would be less than 50,000
So, no caps on immigration this week, criticising Enoch Powell last week.
That's the afternoon thread sorted.
"Have Farage and UKIP become part of the Liberal LabLibCan Metropolitan Elite with these new policies?"
The Australian style points system gives more than twice the percapita immigration rate of the UK.
Australia has a third the population of the UK, so two thirds of the actual immigration.
How does that work out as immigrants per square kilometre of land (clue, Australia is 7 MILLION square metres of land, the UK is less than quarter of one million, so about a 30th of the size)
No. Australia has as many annual immigrants as us, but about a 1/3 of our population.
Australia is vast, but these migrants are not living in the outback. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world and migration is putting the same strain on their pre existing population as on ours.
So far as I can see no developed economy has managed to get immigration down to the level that Farage or Cameron propose apart from Japan.
Is the plan to ban foreign spouses of British nationals? Deport all asylum seekers on arrival irrespective of their history? Deport all students as soon as their course finishes? Refuse permission for the 10 million UK nationals living outside the country from returning. These are the sorts of policies required to get net migration down to the tens of thousands.
And yet, the UK managed to do so, from 1962-1997, when the economy grew more rapidly than subsequently.
Surely that was down to the huge exodus of luvvies fleeing Fatcha?
More likely the "Brain drain", thousands of our brightest and our best fleeing Ed Balls Healey.
For a very different memory of the Seventies, see here:
What distinguishes the two YouGov polls this week is that the Tories have better 2010 voter retention than Labour (doesn't happen regularly I think) - which is quite something when considering Ukip and the two parties are coming from a high base and low base respectively
Tories have done what they said they would do. Worked to repair the economy broken under Labour. That was what the voters required in 2010. OK, so it required the patriotic assistance of the LibDems. Not our fault if they wanted to be semi-detached about their participation. They could have been the sensible Left, if they had spent 5 years pounding on Labour. Hey ho. The Tories get the glories.
Labour had a significant component in 2010 who didn't believe the Tories would work their magic on the economy. They expected massive cuts, massive unemployment. So they stayed with Gordon Brown. Who had saved the world. We know this because he told us so. And some people believed it.
Those who voted Labour in 2010 because they had a fundamental, over-riding concern about the economy have an interesting decision in 2015.
If Ed goes for children's issues he'll get walloped.
In fact there's not a lot on the list that wouldn't presage a general thrashing for Ed. Even strong Labour suits would rightly be derided as questioning from his comfort zone.
He should ask some pertinent questions about the idiotic and myopic flogging off of Eurostar.
@tnewtondunn: "Farage seems to be making it up as he goes along. One minute he talks about a cap, then he ditches it live on air," Osborne on @BBCr4today
@tnewtondunn: Re previous tweet, Farage abandoning an immigration target has gifted the down and out Tories a way back into the debate. He may regret it.
Looking at the detail of today's YouGov poll reveals a Tory lead of 1.4%. Only rounding of party shares made it 2%.
As Nick P says, effectively its a draw at the moment. However, the lower the Lib UNS the more seats the Tories likely to gain. 5% is a crazily low number.
Interesting discussion on Parliamentary architecture and prospectd for those familiar with the location (even if it does contain a horrific confession of mouse abuse :-)):
Just suppose that Labour ended up winning slightly fewer seats in May than the 258 seats they won in 2010. For this to happen, the Tories' seemingly recent recovery would need to continue over the remaining 9 weeks prior to the election, limiting Labour gains from them to say between 16 - 22 seats. Equally, I'm assuming Labour are set to gain between 10-12 seats from the LibDems and to lose between 38-42 seats to the SNP.
Such a scenario would result in a net loss of 4 seats at best and 16 seats at worst. Based on their current total of 258 seats, this would result in Labour holding between 242 and 254 seats after the May General Election, thereby straddling either side of the 226 - 250 Seats band offered by a number of bookies.
Interestingly, although generally the odds on offer have inevitably tended to converge as we get closer and closer to the GE, in this particular market there is still a considerable divergence with those nice folk at both Ladbrokes and bet365 offering 6/1, whilst those even nicer folk at SkyBet are offering conspicuosly better odds of 10/1.
At these latter odds, this admittedly unlikely but certainly possible scenario might just be worth investing a pint or two in, but as ever DYOR!
@iainjwatson: Now @ukip leader Nigel Farage says no caps and targets on immigration on #r4today - but thinks numbers would be less than 50,000
So, no caps on immigration this week, criticising Enoch Powell last week.
That's the afternoon thread sorted.
"Have Farage and UKIP become part of the Liberal LabLibCan Metropolitan Elite with these new policies?"
The Australian style points system gives more than
How does that work out as immigrants per square kilometre of land (clue, Australia is 7 MILLION square metres of land, the UK is less than quarter of one million, so about a 30th of the size)
No. Australia has as many annual immigrants as us, but about a 1/3 of our population.
Australia is vast, but these migrants are not living in the outback. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world and migration is putting the same strain on their pre existing population as on ours.
So far as I can see no developed economy has managed to get immigration down to the level that Farage or Cameron propose apart from Japan.
Is the plan to ban foreign spouses of British nationals? Deport all asylum seekers on arrival irrespective of their history? Deport all students as soon as their course finishes? Refuse permission for the 10 million UK nationals living outside the country from returning. These are the sorts of policies required to get net migration down to the tens of thousands.
And yet, the UK managed to do so, from 1962-1997, when the economy grew more rapidly than subsequently.
In the 1980s there were periods of net emigration, but those days are gone (short of Bennett as PM).
Patterns of migration into Scandanavia (Norway being a non EU example) and EU countries, as well as Switzerland, USA, Canada, Australia and NZ all show similar ilor larger surges of immigration than us.
Even the basket case of Greece has had a million immigrants (with base population of 15 million) over last two decades.
On immigration: I would start by deporting existing illegals and overstayers and failed asylum seekers. Until we have a functioning system for doing this there is no point in changing policy. Writing new rules when existing rules are not enforced is whistling in the wind.
It's curious isn't it? We (by which I mean Western countries) have very high levels of immigration, at a time when our economic performance is piss-poor, at least compared to the 1950-2000 period. These days, it's a cause for rejoicing if a Western country grows at 2%. Then, that was considered the norm.
Just suppose that Labour ended up winning slightly fewer seats in May than the 258 seats they won in 2010. For this to happen, the Tories' seemingly recent recovery would need to continue over the remaining 9 weeks prior to the election, limiting Labour gains from them to say between 16 - 22 seats. Equally, I'm assuming Labour are set to gain between 10-12 seats from the LibDems and to lose between 38-42 seats to the SNP.
Such a scenario would result in a net loss of 4 seats at best and 16 seats at worst. Based on their current total of 258 seats, this would result in Labour holding between 242 and 254 seats after the May General Election, thereby straddling either side of the 226 - 250 Seats band offered by a number of bookies.
Interestingly, although generally the odds on offer have inevitably tended to converge as we get closer and closer to the GE, in this particular market there is still a considerable divergence with those nice folk at both Ladbrokes and bet365 offering 6/1, whilst those even nicer folk at SkyBet are offering conspicuosly better odds of 10/1.
At these latter odds, this admittedly unlikely but certainly possible scenario might just be worth investing a pint or two in, but as ever DYOR!
I agree with this. Indeed, I put up a post a couple of weeks ago about the seat bands tipping this band for both Labour and the Conservatives:
I see Osborne has another £750m to give away in the Budget, having sold remains of Eurostar yesterday. It's a one-off, so can't be used for a tax cut of some sort.
Just suppose that Labour ended up winning slightly fewer seats in May than the 258 seats they won in 2010. For this to happen, the Tories' seemingly recent recovery would need to continue over the remaining 9 weeks prior to the election, limiting Labour gains from them to say between 16 - 22 seats. Equally, I'm assuming Labour are set to gain between 10-12 seats from the LibDems and to lose between 38-42 seats to the SNP.
Such a scenario would result in a net loss of 4 seats at best and 16 seats at worst. Based on their current total of 258 seats, this would result in Labour holding between 242 and 254 seats after the May General Election, thereby straddling either side of the 226 - 250 Seats band offered by a number of bookies.
Interestingly, although generally the odds on offer have inevitably tended to converge as we get closer and closer to the GE, in this particular market there is still a considerable divergence with those nice folk at both Ladbrokes and bet365 offering 6/1, whilst those even nicer folk at SkyBet are offering conspicuosly better odds of 10/1.
At these latter odds, this admittedly unlikely but certainly possible scenario might just be worth investing a pint or two in, but as ever DYOR!
@iainjwatson: Now @ukip leader Nigel Farage says no caps and targets on immigration on #r4today - but thinks numbers would be less than 50,000
So, no caps on immigration this week, criticising Enoch Powell last week.
That's the afternoon thread sorted.
"Have Farage and UKIP become part of the Liberal LabLibCan Metropolitan Elite with these new policies?"
The Australian style points system gives more than twice the percapita immigration rate of the UK.
Australia has a third the population of the UK, so two thirds of the actual immigration.
How does that work out as immigrants per square kilometre of land (clue, Australia is 7 MILLION square metres of land, the UK is less than quarter of one million, so about a 30th of the size)
No. Australia has as many annual immigrants as us, but about a 1/3 of our population.
Australia is vast, but these migrants are not living in the outback. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world and migration is putting the same strain on their pre existing population as on ours.
So far as I can see no developed economy has managed to get immigration down to the level that Farage or Cameron propose apart from Japan.
Is the plan to ban foreign spouses of British nationals? Deport all asylum seekers on arrival irrespective of their history? Deport all students as soon as their course finishes? Refuse permission for the 10 million UK nationals living outside the country from returning. These are the sorts of policies required to get net migration down to the tens of thousands.
And yet, the UK managed to do so, from 1962-1997, when the economy grew more rapidly than subsequently.
But that was economic growth which led to everyone becoming wealthier.
As opposed to the economic growth since 1997 where the extra wealth has been concentrated among the top 10%.
I see Osborne has another £750m to give away in the Budget, having sold remains of Eurostar yesterday. It's a one-off, so can't be used for a tax cut of some sort.
If I were Ed and wanted to stay in my comfort zone (as he does), I'd go on tuition fees and second jobs for all six questions. Popular at first at inspection, and tuition fees allows him to kick the corpse of the LDs.
Security is never a Labour issue, and children's issues will never resonate with the spectre of Rotherham hanging around.
As opposed to the economic growth since 1997 where the extra wealth has been concentrated among the top 10%.
Much less than 10% I would think.
In 1999 the bottom 1% earned £4,600 and in 2013 earned £8,430 = 183% increase The median pay was £19,600 and in 2013 is £29,900 = 152% increase The 99th percentile was £96,400 and in 2013 is £156,000 = 161% increase
So the poor have actually done well compared to the moderate and well off, its the obscenely well off maybe the top 0.1% that have made a killing.
For a party on 5%, the aim will be to find vote winners rather than to avoid vote losers. He may have found a vote winner here.
Agreed. He should drive further on it.
The word "drugs" carries heavy connotations. For instance, my mother is scared of drugs. Drugs are bad for you, drugs kill etc.
I would suspect that a young bloke doing a few lines of (poor quality, but still Class A) coke on the weekend is far healthier and far less prone to health issues than a middle-aged woman on prescription co-codamol.
We need to break down the prejudices and fears surrounding drugs and have a sensible debate about it. Clegg could be the man.
Not saying Yougov is wrong, but that's quite some upweighting on the Conservative % when the 2010 VI was as close as damnit to the correct score.
YG seem to be routinely up-weighting both Con and Lab.
Labour were on 29 in one just over a week ago when 2010/2015 vote ratios were applied to the sample. They had fewer 'now' voters in that sample than they had 2010 voters. It's happened a couple of times recently.
Scotland As with yesterday's Mori (first question), when compared to other UK regions Scotland has the highest numbers citing the economy, and the lowest numbers citing health/nhs.
Perhaps Labour need to be talking more about the economy?
@tnewtondunn: Re previous tweet, Farage abandoning an immigration target has gifted the down and out Tories a way back into the debate. He may regret it.
Just looked at Farage's latest proposal, it sounds reasonable except for resurrecting "primary purpose rules" which is a nice idea in principle, but idiocy on stilts in reality. It places the requirement on the applicant to "prove that the purpose of the marriage was other than for immigration", how are you supposed to prove a negative ?
For a party on 5%, the aim will be to find vote winners rather than to avoid vote losers. He may have found a vote winner here.
Agreed. He should drive further on it.
The word "drugs" carries heavy connotations. For instance, my mother is scared of drugs. Drugs are bad for you, drugs kill etc.
I would suspect that a young bloke doing a few lines of (poor quality, but still Class A) coke on the weekend is far healthier and far less prone to health issues than a middle-aged woman on prescription co-codamol.
We need to break down the prejudices and fears surrounding drugs and have a sensible debate about it. Clegg could be the man.
Sure.
There are lots of people, particularly older people, who live in a world of good drugs and bad drugs. They tend not to like having these certainties challenged and will find all the evidence they can to hold on to their beliefs.
@tnewtondunn: Re previous tweet, Farage abandoning an immigration target has gifted the down and out Tories a way back into the debate. He may regret it.
Just looked at Farage's latest proposal, it sounds reasonable except for resurrecting "primary purpose rules" which is a nice idea in principle, but idiocy on stilts in reality. It places the requirement on the applicant to "prove that the purpose of the marriage was other than for immigration", how are you supposed to prove a negative ?
Presumably you have to prove you know the person.
I think this is quite common: The film 'Green Card' was based around a similar procedure for the USA.
For a party on 5%, the aim will be to find vote winners rather than to avoid vote losers. He may have found a vote winner here.
Agreed. He should drive further on it.
The word "drugs" carries heavy connotations. For instance, my mother is scared of drugs. Drugs are bad for you, drugs kill etc.
I would suspect that a young bloke doing a few lines of (poor quality, but still Class A) coke on the weekend is far healthier and far less prone to health issues than a middle-aged woman on prescription co-codamol.
We need to break down the prejudices and fears surrounding drugs and have a sensible debate about it. Clegg could be the man.
Sure.
There are lots of people, particularly older people, who live in a world of good drugs and bad drugs. They tend not to like having these certainties challenged and will find all the evidence they can to hold on to their beliefs.
Sounds dicey, what if the afore mentioned young bloke was using meth or krokodil or some other delightful stuff that wrecks your body in a few months of use.
@tnewtondunn: Re previous tweet, Farage abandoning an immigration target has gifted the down and out Tories a way back into the debate. He may regret it.
Just looked at Farage's latest proposal, it sounds reasonable except for resurrecting "primary purpose rules" which is a nice idea in principle, but idiocy on stilts in reality. It places the requirement on the applicant to "prove that the purpose of the marriage was other than for immigration", how are you supposed to prove a negative ?
Presumably you have to prove you know the person.
I think this is quite common: The film 'Green Card' was based around a similar procedure for the USA.
I see Osborne has another £750m to give away in the Budget, having sold remains of Eurostar yesterday. It's a one-off, so can't be used for a tax cut of some sort.
On current performance that's about 4 days borrowing covered.
@tnewtondunn: Re previous tweet, Farage abandoning an immigration target has gifted the down and out Tories a way back into the debate. He may regret it.
Just looked at Farage's latest proposal, it sounds reasonable except for resurrecting "primary purpose rules" which is a nice idea in principle, but idiocy on stilts in reality. It places the requirement on the applicant to "prove that the purpose of the marriage was other than for immigration", how are you supposed to prove a negative ?
Presumably you have to prove you know the person.
I think this is quite common: The film 'Green Card' was based around a similar procedure for the USA.
Its far more onerous than that. Since you cant prove a negative you have to basically prove the relationship existed for a significant time before the visa application, so that the application was just part of life, and not the object of the exercise. When I made my application I turned up with two briefcases full of "evidence" showing that the relationship between my wife and I had existed for over a year before the application, loads of photos, correspondence, birthday cards, that sort of stuff. The main pain in the arse is that you probably won't incidentally have enough "evidence" to hand, and need to purposely start collecting it a year or so before your application, and even then its in the gift of the immigration officer at the embassy.
For a party on 5%, the aim will be to find vote winners rather than to avoid vote losers. He may have found a vote winner here.
Agreed. He should drive further on it.
The word "drugs" carries heavy connotations. For instance, my mother is scared of drugs. Drugs are bad for you, drugs kill etc.
I would suspect that a young bloke doing a few lines of (poor quality, but still Class A) coke on the weekend is far healthier and far less prone to health issues than a middle-aged woman on prescription co-codamol.
We need to break down the prejudices and fears surrounding drugs and have a sensible debate about it. Clegg could be the man.
How about some evidence that middle aged people taking prescription co-codamol have adverse health effects?
The perils of cocaine usage are fairly well documented in the sad tales of psychosis, hypertension, nasal septum atrophy etc...
Scotland As with yesterday's Mori (first question), when compared to other UK regions Scotland has the highest numbers citing the economy, and the lowest numbers citing health/nhs.
Perhaps Labour need to be talking more about the economy?
LOL, they are fixated on the NHS, only thing they talk about the idiots.
@politicshome: Nigel Farage denies Ukip is doing a U-turn on migration targets - "There is no U-turn, there is a change in emphasis" http://t.co/KTQK4eYgoU
If I were Ed and wanted to stay in my comfort zone (as he does), I'd go on tuition fees and second jobs for all six questions. Popular at first at inspection, and tuition fees allows him to kick the corpse of the LDs.
Security is never a Labour issue, and children's issues will never resonate with the spectre of Rotherham hanging around.
Ed is thinking short term as usual. In seat terms,the Tories are the major beneficiary of falling lib Dem vote.This reduces the chance of the LDs being a big enough coalition partner for labour and increases the chance of an overall Con majority.
On the basis of Ed doing as instructed by Mr McCluskey & Mr Prentis, children's issues could be the first question as it affects the Union membership. That would though be a lovely gift to Cam on many levels, mainly that this growing Union influence seems to be slowly eroding any sense in Labour policy.
Meanwhile Murphy has ditched his own and UK Labour policy on tuition fees and decided that Scottish ( Ha Ha ) Labour now support the SNP policy going forward.
If Ed goes for children's issues he'll get walloped.
In fact there's not a lot on the list that wouldn't presage a general thrashing for Ed. Even strong Labour suits would rightly be derided as questioning from his comfort zone.
He should ask some pertinent questions about the idiotic and myopic flogging off of Eurostar.
Even that wouldn't work. The obvious rejoinder is to remind him about the need to address the deficit his party created that he keeps forgetting. Further, when it comes to idiotic and myopic floggings off, anything pales alongside the idiotic and myopic flogging off of our gold reserves.
It's lucky for Ed that he has his superior intellectual self confidence.
@politicshome: Nigel Farage denies Ukip is doing a U-turn on migration targets - "There is no U-turn, there is a change in emphasis" http://t.co/KTQK4eYgoU
"change in emphasis" - looks like Nigel can read a graph and can spot the trends.
Normally I regard a UKIP shambles as at worst neutral for that party because it at least gets them in the headlines. For the first time in a long time, I wonder whether that might not be the case with the abandonment of hard immigration targets - it seems to undermine UKIP's USP to me and make Nigel Farage look just the same as all the rest of the party leaders.
I'd be most interested in the views of kippers and kipper-waverers on the subject.
Normally I regard a UKIP shambles as at worst neutral for that party because it at least gets them in the headlines. For the first time in a long time, I wonder whether that might not be the case with the abandonment of hard immigration targets - it seems to undermine UKIP's USP to me and make Nigel Farage look just the same as all the rest of the party leaders.
I'd be most interested in the views of kippers and kipper-waverers on the subject.
@MrJacHart: Not seen much of a rush from rank-and-file Ukippers this morning to defend their dear leader's comments on immigration...
@DPJHodges: Odd. Normally have Ukip supporters lining up to back their leader. Strangely quiet this morning...
Btw - my absolute worst bet of the week would have to be Gordon Brown to be the next Prime Minister, available from those not very nice folk at Betfair Sportsbook at 50/1. If you really must, the ever so slightly nicer Shadsy is offering 100/1 for the same bet. DYOR .... no better get someone else on the funny farm to do it for you.
Normally I regard a UKIP shambles as at worst neutral for that party because it at least gets them in the headlines. For the first time in a long time, I wonder whether that might not be the case with the abandonment of hard immigration targets - it seems to undermine UKIP's USP to me and make Nigel Farage look just the same as all the rest of the party leaders.
I'd be most interested in the views of kippers and kipper-waverers on the subject.
Mr Farage has an article on immigration in today's Telegraph.
Normally I regard a UKIP shambles as at worst neutral for that party because it at least gets them in the headlines. For the first time in a long time, I wonder whether that might not be the case with the abandonment of hard immigration targets - it seems to undermine UKIP's USP to me and make Nigel Farage look just the same as all the rest of the party leaders.
I'd be most interested in the views of kippers and kipper-waverers on the subject.
My own view is that it's like Labour and the NHS, or Conservatives and Defence. People assume UKIP will be best on immigration, because it's their issue, without being too concerned about specifics.
If Ed goes for children's issues he'll get walloped.
In fact there's not a lot on the list that wouldn't presage a general thrashing for Ed. Even strong Labour suits would rightly be derided as questioning from his comfort zone.
He should ask some pertinent questions about the idiotic and myopic flogging off of Eurostar.
Even that wouldn't work. The obvious rejoinder is to remind him about the need to address the deficit his party created that he keeps forgetting. Further, when it comes to idiotic and myopic floggings off, anything pales alongside the idiotic and myopic flogging off of our gold reserves.
It's lucky for Ed that he has his superior intellectual self confidence.
Gold is shiny but having reserves doesn't make a return. Eurostar does each and every year.
Normally I regard a UKIP shambles as at worst neutral for that party because it at least gets them in the headlines. For the first time in a long time, I wonder whether that might not be the case with the abandonment of hard immigration targets - it seems to undermine UKIP's USP to me and make Nigel Farage look just the same as all the rest of the party leaders.
I'd be most interested in the views of kippers and kipper-waverers on the subject.
I am neither, but I am pro controlled immigration. It makes sense to be able to admit people beneficial to the country and keep out those that are not, this someone how seems to be controversial in the UK for some reason despite being standard policy in most of the liberal democracies in the world.
I don't see the need for a particular cap, but it makes sense to admit qualified useful people, and keep out people that are going to be a drain on the state. Dependants of qualified useful people are clearly not going to be drains on the state and so should be admitted as well. We also need the ability to properly exclude the criminal, the undesirable and to throw people out so that they stay out. When you can buy a EU passport in Bulgaria of a thousand or so euros, the whole idea of border control at the moment is in complete disrepute. In the same way we should deport all asylum seekers that have failed in their final appeal, having a couple of hundred thousand failed asylum seekers sitting around the country is a disgrace.
As I said below "primary purpose" is idiotic and should be left well alone, all you should have to prove is that you have a reasonable expectation of supporting your dependants without recourse to the state.
just a thought, the 18-24 subsample may not be left field. I recall seeing quite a number of subsamples of 18-24 age group over the past few weeks where the Tories were in the lead. It is the 24-35 year olds who are a total disaster for the Tories. Thank goodness most of them haven't bothered to register to vote. Strip 5% off the Labour score in any poll to reflect all its "voters" who are among the 7.5 million who haven't bothered to register and therefore wont be voting on 7th May.
Normally I regard a UKIP shambles as at worst neutral for that party because it at least gets them in the headlines. For the first time in a long time, I wonder whether that might not be the case with the abandonment of hard immigration targets - it seems to undermine UKIP's USP to me and make Nigel Farage look just the same as all the rest of the party leaders.
I'd be most interested in the views of kippers and kipper-waverers on the subject.
Mr Farage has an article on immigration in today's Telegraph.
Normally I regard a UKIP shambles as at worst neutral for that party because it at least gets them in the headlines. For the first time in a long time, I wonder whether that might not be the case with the abandonment of hard immigration targets - it seems to undermine UKIP's USP to me and make Nigel Farage look just the same as all the rest of the party leaders.
I'd be most interested in the views of kippers and kipper-waverers on the subject.
If Ed goes for children's issues he'll get walloped.
In fact there's not a lot on the list that wouldn't presage a general thrashing for Ed. Even strong Labour suits would rightly be derided as questioning from his comfort zone.
He should ask some pertinent questions about the idiotic and myopic flogging off of Eurostar.
Even that wouldn't work. The obvious rejoinder is to remind him about the need to address the deficit his party created that he keeps forgetting. Further, when it comes to idiotic and myopic floggings off, anything pales alongside the idiotic and myopic flogging off of our gold reserves.
It's lucky for Ed that he has his superior intellectual self confidence.
Gold is shiny but having reserves doesn't make a return. Eurostar does each and every year.
In 2007 Eurostar was sitting on over £6bn of debt, I wonder how much it has now (honestly don't know, but it gives a fuller picture of what is really happening)
Btw - my absolute worst bet of the week would have to be Gordon Brown to be the next Prime Minister, available from those not very nice folk at Betfair Sportsbook at 50/1. If you really must, the ever so slightly nicer Shadsy is offering 100/1 for the same bet. DYOR .... no better get someone else on the funny farm to do it for you.
Scotland As with yesterday's Mori (first question), when compared to other UK regions Scotland has the highest numbers citing the economy, and the lowest numbers citing health/nhs.
Perhaps Labour need to be talking more about the economy?
Health is a dead issue for Labour in Scotland but they don't seem to understand it.
NHS contact is rated 96% good or excellent. Scotland is covered in shiny new hospitals and clinics. Labour spent the referendum claiming the NHS was safe with a No vote. NHS Wales is such an easy target for the massive SNP ground game.
But they keep going, trying to manufacture a "crisis" no-one believes, insulting to the intelligence of Scots and the achievements of staff.
just a thought, the 18-24 subsample may not be left field. I recall seeing quite a number of subsamples of 18-24 age group over the past few weeks where the Tories were in the lead. It is the 24-35 year olds who are a total disaster for the Tories. Thank goodness most of them haven't bothered to register to vote. Strip 5% off the Labour score in any poll to reflect all its "voters" who are among the 7.5 million who haven't bothered to register and therefore wont be voting on 7th May.
Don't polling companies restrict their surveys to people on the electoral register?
Normally I regard a UKIP shambles as at worst neutral for that party because it at least gets them in the headlines. For the first time in a long time, I wonder whether that might not be the case with the abandonment of hard immigration targets - it seems to undermine UKIP's USP to me and make Nigel Farage look just the same as all the rest of the party leaders.
I'd be most interested in the views of kippers and kipper-waverers on the subject.
When I read the article in the Telegraph in the early hours of this morning it motivated me to fire off an e-mail to my MEP and Party Leader Mr Farage giving him my views. I have just watched a less than successful interview with Norman Smith on BBC News 24. I will be sending another much shorter e-mail later today likely saying. 'I Told You So'.
The policy is fine and still pretty much unchanged. Farage should not have tried to spin it the way he has. He was never going to get away with it.
Jackie Baillie's face was a peach on Scotland 2015 when she did the usual "SNP want to cut corp tax" and even Sarah Smith had to step in and correct her. Labour will want a refund from their BBC propogandists.
just a thought, the 18-24 subsample may not be left field. I recall seeing quite a number of subsamples of 18-24 age group over the past few weeks where the Tories were in the lead. It is the 24-35 year olds who are a total disaster for the Tories. Thank goodness most of them haven't bothered to register to vote. Strip 5% off the Labour score in any poll to reflect all its "voters" who are among the 7.5 million who haven't bothered to register and therefore wont be voting on 7th May.
Don't polling companies restrict their surveys to people on the electoral register?
Don't think they can. Phone pollsters randomise the last number so they have no idea who they are actually talking to. On-line pollster the person might not exist at all, it could just be an on-line fiction.
Jackie Baillie's face was a peach on Scotland 2015 when she did the usual "SNP want to cut corp tax" and even Sarah Smith had to step in and correct her. Labour will want a refund from their BBC propogandists.
Nats were always going to lurch hard to the left under Sturgeon. Big chance missed to boost the Scottish private sector.
Jackie Baillie's face was a peach on Scotland 2015 when she did the usual "SNP want to cut corp tax" and even Sarah Smith had to step in and correct her. Labour will want a refund from their BBC propogandists.
Nats were always going to lurch hard to the left under Sturgeon. Big chance missed to boost the Scottish private sector.
In fairness it looks like she isn't going to completely abandon the principle but link "discounts" to companies achieving social targets (like Living Wage or Apprenticeships). There's a lot to be said for that approach.
5% Corp Tax for any company with a Final Salary Pension scheme sounds like a good idea to me (not that she will go that far).
Scotland As with yesterday's Mori (first question), when compared to other UK regions Scotland has the highest numbers citing the economy, and the lowest numbers citing health/nhs.
Perhaps Labour need to be talking more about the economy?
Health is a dead issue for Labour in Scotland but they don't seem to understand it.
NHS contact is rated 96% good or excellent. Scotland is covered in shiny new hospitals and clinics. Labour spent the referendum claiming the NHS was safe with a No vote. NHS Wales is such an easy target for the massive SNP ground game.
But they keep going, trying to manufacture a "crisis" no-one believes, insulting to the intelligence of Scots and the achievements of staff.
Jenny Marra's girning face on the news every night whinging about a non crisis is enough to finish them off. Last night it was about a handful of people having to wait 12 hours in A&E.
OT TV ideas. Just watched the new series Bosch with Titus Welliver [I love him] which was rather good - it's on Amazon Prime, and the new season of House of Cards which was slightly more character intensive, and thought it was great.
Anyone got others they'd recommend? Thought Damages with Glenn Close was very patchy and tortured plotting.
just a thought, the 18-24 subsample may not be left field. I recall seeing quite a number of subsamples of 18-24 age group over the past few weeks where the Tories were in the lead. It is the 24-35 year olds who are a total disaster for the Tories. Thank goodness most of them haven't bothered to register to vote. Strip 5% off the Labour score in any poll to reflect all its "voters" who are among the 7.5 million who haven't bothered to register and therefore wont be voting on 7th May.
Don't polling companies restrict their surveys to people on the electoral register?
Sean they have no way of knowing who is on the electoral roll. Most ordinary voters don't know which constituency they actually live in, especially in Scotland and Wales where there are different constituencies covering the same geographical area for different parliaments.
Jackie Baillie's face was a peach on Scotland 2015 when she did the usual "SNP want to cut corp tax" and even Sarah Smith had to step in and correct her. Labour will want a refund from their BBC propogandists.
Nats were always going to lurch hard to the left under Sturgeon. Big chance missed to boost the Scottish private sector.
In fairness it looks like she isn't going to completely abandon the principle but link "discounts" to companies achieving social targets (like Living Wage or Apprenticeships). There's a lot to be said for that approach.
5% Corp Tax for any company with a Final Salary Pension scheme sounds like a good idea to me (not that she will go that far).
Still running a final salary pension scheme and paying corporation tax ?
@paulwaugh: Farage: "Our intention is to bring net migration to between 20k + 50k". From cap to target to ambition. And now an 'intention'
In the same was as "We will cut immigration to tens of thousands, that's a promise, no ifs, no buts" became a "comment" ? Not a particularly fruitful line of attack for the Conservative's I would say
Jackie Baillie's face was a peach on Scotland 2015 when she did the usual "SNP want to cut corp tax" and even Sarah Smith had to step in and correct her. Labour will want a refund from their BBC propogandists.
Nats were always going to lurch hard to the left under Sturgeon. Big chance missed to boost the Scottish private sector.
In fairness it looks like she isn't going to completely abandon the principle but link "discounts" to companies achieving social targets (like Living Wage or Apprenticeships). There's a lot to be said for that approach.
5% Corp Tax for any company with a Final Salary Pension scheme sounds like a good idea to me (not that she will go that far).
Still running a final salary pension scheme and paying corporation tax ?
Comments
Patterns of migration into Scandanavia (Norway being a non EU example) and EU countries, as well as Switzerland, USA, Canada, Australia and NZ all show similar ilor larger surges of immigration than us.
Even the basket case of Greece has had a million immigrants (with base population of 15 million) over last two decades.
On immigration: I would start by deporting existing illegals and overstayers and failed asylum seekers. Until we have a functioning system for doing this there is no point in changing policy. Writing new rules when existing rules are not enforced is whistling in the wind.
Shall we reconsider?
There's no shortage of action that could taken against plods, social workers etc who tolerate and sometimes collaborate with child rapists under existing legislation.
But the public services are infinitely more concerned about protecting themselves rather than the vulnerable children they are legally bound to protect.
Twenty-seven weeks after the Jay report how many Rotherham plods, social workers, children's home managers, councillors and council officials have been arrested ?
I believe the answer is zero, zero, zero, zero and zero.
Yet you can be immediately arrested for a tweet:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19059127
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/24/the-city-that-privatised-itself-to-death-london-is-now-a-set-of-improbable-sex-toys-poking-gormlessly-into-the-air
Labour had a significant component in 2010 who didn't believe the Tories would work their magic on the economy. They expected massive cuts, massive unemployment. So they stayed with Gordon Brown. Who had saved the world. We know this because he told us so. And some people believed it.
Those who voted Labour in 2010 because they had a fundamental, over-riding concern about the economy have an interesting decision in 2015.
If Ed goes for children's issues he'll get walloped.
In fact there's not a lot on the list that wouldn't presage a general thrashing for Ed. Even strong Labour suits would rightly be derided as questioning from his comfort zone.
He should ask some pertinent questions about the idiotic and myopic flogging off of Eurostar.
@tnewtondunn: Re previous tweet, Farage abandoning an immigration target has gifted the down and out Tories a way back into the debate. He may regret it.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/03/whisper-it-but-maybe-the-palace-of-westminister-has-had-its-day
My bet of the week this time is a long shot.
Just suppose that Labour ended up winning slightly fewer seats in May than the 258 seats they won in 2010. For this to happen, the Tories' seemingly recent recovery would need to continue over the remaining 9 weeks prior to the election, limiting Labour gains from them to say between 16 - 22 seats. Equally, I'm assuming Labour are set to gain between 10-12 seats from the LibDems and to lose between 38-42 seats to the SNP.
Such a scenario would result in a net loss of 4 seats at best and 16 seats at worst.
Based on their current total of 258 seats, this would result in Labour holding between 242 and 254 seats after the May General Election, thereby straddling either side of the 226 - 250 Seats band offered by a number of bookies.
Interestingly, although generally the odds on offer have inevitably tended to converge as we get closer and closer to the GE, in this particular market there is still a considerable divergence with those nice folk at both Ladbrokes and bet365 offering 6/1, whilst those even nicer folk at SkyBet are offering conspicuosly better odds of 10/1.
At these latter odds, this admittedly unlikely but certainly possible scenario might just be worth investing a pint or two in, but as ever DYOR!
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/adding-and-subtracting-implications-for.html
As opposed to the economic growth since 1997 where the extra wealth has been concentrated among the top 10%.
Jumped onto the wrong horse?
1. Most important issues facing the country: immigration (50%), economy (46%), health (42%)
2. Most important issues facing my family: economy (43%), health (38%), pensions (29%)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ss0m2jmr6y/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-030315.pdf
Politically difficult but absolutely right.
A free owl for all.
Tories - delivering. Labour - piss and wind.
If I were Ed and wanted to stay in my comfort zone (as he does), I'd go on tuition fees and second jobs for all six questions. Popular at first at inspection, and tuition fees allows him to kick the corpse of the LDs.
Security is never a Labour issue, and children's issues will never resonate with the spectre of Rotherham hanging around.
In 1999 the bottom 1% earned £4,600 and in 2013 earned £8,430 = 183% increase
The median pay was £19,600 and in 2013 is £29,900 = 152% increase
The 99th percentile was £96,400 and in 2013 is £156,000 = 161% increase
So the poor have actually done well compared to the moderate and well off, its the obscenely well off maybe the top 0.1% that have made a killing.
The word "drugs" carries heavy connotations. For instance, my mother is scared of drugs. Drugs are bad for you, drugs kill etc.
I would suspect that a young bloke doing a few lines of (poor quality, but still Class A) coke on the weekend is far healthier and far less prone to health issues than a middle-aged woman on prescription co-codamol.
We need to break down the prejudices and fears surrounding drugs and have a sensible debate about it. Clegg could be the man.
Labour were on 29 in one just over a week ago when 2010/2015 vote ratios were applied to the sample. They had fewer 'now' voters in that sample than they had 2010 voters. It's happened a couple of times recently.
As with yesterday's Mori (first question), when compared to other UK regions Scotland has the highest numbers citing the economy, and the lowest numbers citing health/nhs.
Perhaps Labour need to be talking more about the economy?
LibDems on 4% in London. They got 22% IN 2010.
London - Labour 39, Con 35 - in 2010 it was Labour 37, Con 35
Greens getting a big lift 1.6% 2010, 10% in 2015. Presumably mostly from the LibDems.
Tories ahead of Labour 37-29 in the 18-24 age bracket. So much for Ed's master stroke on tuition fees...
2010 LibDems peeling off 34% Labour - 16% Tories - Labour's best for a while?
There are lots of people, particularly older people, who live in a world of good drugs and bad drugs. They tend not to like having these certainties challenged and will find all the evidence they can to hold on to their beliefs.
"n fact there's not a lot on the list that wouldn't presage a general thrashing for Ed."
I agree. So he ought to be bold and go on phone hacking at the Mirror - that would certainly wrong-foot Cameron.
But PMQs is a battle of soundbites and you have to think ... What would softy Walter do? It only leaves tuition fees and second jobs.
I think this is quite common: The film 'Green Card' was based around a similar procedure for the USA.
The Greens were the 2nd preference of both Labour (31%) and LD (41%) voters.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/42tha4tjwo/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-270215.pdf
Do I, shall I, Buy?
I'd be extremely sceptical of this poll sub-sample.
The perils of cocaine usage are fairly well documented in the sad tales of psychosis, hypertension, nasal septum atrophy etc...
Meanwhile Murphy has ditched his own and UK Labour policy on tuition fees and decided that Scottish ( Ha Ha ) Labour now support the SNP policy going forward.
It's lucky for Ed that he has his superior intellectual self confidence.
Single figures beckon.
I'd be most interested in the views of kippers and kipper-waverers on the subject.
@DPJHodges: Odd. Normally have Ukip supporters lining up to back their leader. Strangely quiet this morning...
If you really must, the ever so slightly nicer Shadsy is offering 100/1 for the same bet. DYOR .... no better get someone else on the funny farm to do it for you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11447132/Nigel-Farage-Ukips-immigration-policy-is-built-on-fairness.html
I don't see that UKIP are abandoning anything.
Today's YouGov Libs 5 per cent, SNP 5 (40 in Scotland). The new crossover?
Con 34.0
Lab 33.0
UKIP 14.1
LD 7.0
Grn 6.0
I don't see the need for a particular cap, but it makes sense to admit qualified useful people, and keep out people that are going to be a drain on the state. Dependants of qualified useful people are clearly not going to be drains on the state and so should be admitted as well. We also need the ability to properly exclude the criminal, the undesirable and to throw people out so that they stay out. When you can buy a EU passport in Bulgaria of a thousand or so euros, the whole idea of border control at the moment is in complete disrepute. In the same way we should deport all asylum seekers that have failed in their final appeal, having a couple of hundred thousand failed asylum seekers sitting around the country is a disgrace.
As I said below "primary purpose" is idiotic and should be left well alone, all you should have to prove is that you have a reasonable expectation of supporting your dependants without recourse to the state.
I think the Lib Dems will get more votes than the SNP - obviously their vote efficiency won't be so good
Patrick O Flynn put it nicely back in October on QT 'we want to give immigration a good name again'
Lib Dems 150-1 to take East Ham
NHS contact is rated 96% good or excellent.
Scotland is covered in shiny new hospitals and clinics.
Labour spent the referendum claiming the NHS was safe with a No vote.
NHS Wales is such an easy target for the massive SNP ground game.
But they keep going, trying to manufacture a "crisis" no-one believes, insulting to the intelligence of Scots and the achievements of staff.
The policy is fine and still pretty much unchanged. Farage should not have tried to spin it the way he has. He was never going to get away with it.
Jackie Baillie's face was a peach on Scotland 2015 when she did the usual "SNP want to cut corp tax" and even Sarah Smith had to step in and correct her. Labour will want a refund from their BBC propogandists.
Nats were always going to lurch hard to the left under Sturgeon. Big chance missed to boost the Scottish private sector.
In fairness it looks like she isn't going to completely abandon the principle but link "discounts" to companies achieving social targets (like Living Wage or Apprenticeships). There's a lot to be said for that approach.
5% Corp Tax for any company with a Final Salary Pension scheme sounds like a good idea to me (not that she will go that far).
Anyone got others they'd recommend? Thought Damages with Glenn Close was very patchy and tortured plotting.
5% Corp Tax for any company with a Final Salary Pension scheme sounds like a good idea to me (not that she will go that far).
Still running a final salary pension scheme and paying corporation tax ?
Perhaps tax cuts for 5 legged unicorns too ?
Perhaps tax cuts for 5 legged unicorns too ?