politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov finds CON voters reluctant to blame Mrs. May over the t

Is the Haltemprice and Howden Constitutional Convention going to be invoked over the customs union? A Brexit by-election to test the will of the people.

Sean_F said:

The story doesn't hurt the Conservatives, so it makes no difference if it's in the news. People feel sorry for the Windrush immigrants, but are reassured that the government is tough on illegal immigration.

There's a line between "tough" and "fair". Being the former on immigration is fine as long as the latter is seen to be in effect. If it is seen that the toughness on immigration is more about meeting targets and picking on individuals who can be used to meet those targets quickly and cheaply, that will be massively counter-productive for the Conservatives.

What is wanted and needed is an immigration system that treats people fairly and where there is a genuine case for the individual to be allowed to remain, the system is seen to expedite the process and treat the individual with decency and dignity.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

The_Taxman said:

saddo said:

Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.

I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.

I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.

Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public

Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.

Agreed Labour in danger of overplaying their hand.

At the end of the day being tough on immigration will be popular IMO

Evening BJO - hope you and your good lady are well

Evening Big G I think we are in a bubble.

I really do feel the uncaring public attitude towards immigrants will in the end prove to be a ballot box bonus for the Blues who will be perceived as tougher on the issue.

Completely over the top sympathy for the Windrush generation will soon evaporate.

The current Home Office Visa ban on Indian Doctors who are desperately needed by the NHS is of course madness but unfortunately a lot of people would rather see a poor white Dr than a Fantastically qualified brown one

Danny565 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It was either Windrush for Labour, or continuing to focus Syria, which is also an area of weakness Labour.

I don't see why? Corbyn could've used his PMQs to talk about any number of things - the ongoing schools cuts (which a BBC vox-pop just on had a group of mums just bring up spontaneously), how crap wages are, rents, police cuts (in light of the rise in crime). Those are the issues that bigger groups of people think affect them personally, and would therefore get them out to vote.

If they could expel Ken from the party, that would be a very good sign of positive action on the other lingering issue, so helping them move forward too.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

The_Taxman said:

I am always surprised fracking for oil and gas has not been embraced by the UK Government and population. It would be a major boon to the economy and would positively impact the UK economy in terms of trade. People have double standards on fracking compared to say coal miners. Fracking is opposed on environmental grounds in the vicinity of the drill sites. Coal mining on the other hand can massively impact the local environment, contribute to climate change and screw the miners health sending them to an early grave but that seems to be alright. Personally, if they fracked for oil/gas in my community I would not be worried about it as long as it was not noisy. I would just think of the good to the UK economy from the extra revenue derived from the sales process.

The problem the UK has is that it's a densely populated country.

If you go to Texas, a guy with a ranch sells you a portion of the mineral rights, and then they drive everything in. Some of these ranches are the size of English towns. Finding space for the trucks, and for a giant (temporary) pond for the wastewater is easy. There's also a massive amount of oil collecting equipment already in place, and so getting your new oil into the pipeline network is easy.

In the UK, a 1,000 foot lateral well might cross a dozen property lines, and that's before we start thinking of how you get your oil or gas to market.

My personal view is that we won't see meaningful investments in tight oil and gas in the UK unless the oil price is seen as sustainably over $100-120.

It doesn't matter how many property lines a well crosses. In the UK a property owner has no right to the hydrocarbon resources below the ground. They are the property of the Crown under the 1934 Petroleum Production Act.

Basically a company with a licence can drill under your property and you have no rights to stop them. The only issue is wayleave for getting the oil or gas out.

Which gives people no reason to support it.

I guess it is impossible not to comment upon speculation in these situations, but I wonder at the point of statements like Rudd's about not resigning. If a few hours or days later continuing pressure lead to you actually doing so, your later statement, which no doubt says things about seeing it as the necessary and right option, is immediately known to be a lie, since they don't think that, they just got forced into the action.

SandyRentool said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Just watch that f*cking bellend David Davis ruin my 33/1 bet.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/989971699130085376

What do we get more often: David Davis resignation threats or attempts to set up a new centre party?

Might have to ask Charlie Falconer to adjudicate....

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

The_Taxman said:

saddo said:

Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.

I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.

I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.

Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public

Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.

Agreed Labour in danger of overplaying their hand.

At the end of the day being tough on immigration will be popular IMO

Evening BJO - hope you and your good lady are well

Evening Big G I think we are in a bubble.

I really do feel the uncaring public attitude towards immigrants will in the end prove to be a ballot box bonus for the Blues who will be perceived as tougher on the issue.

Completely over the top sympathy for the Windrush generation will soon evaporate.

The current Home Office Visa ban on Indian Doctors who are desperately needed by the NHS is of course madness but unfortunately a lot of people would rather see a poor white Dr than a Fantastically qualified brown one

I do not even start to understand how daft the policy is over Indian Doctors.

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

The_Taxman said:

saddo said:

Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.

I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.

I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.

Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public

Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.

Yes, but the news cycle moving on will be fa

Without the bungling that has gone on it is possible things would have died down in the short term at least (no doubt sporadic human interest stories would come from time to time), but the fires are still being stoked. It will last awhile yet.

The story doesn't hurt the Conservatives, so it makes no difference if it's in the news. People feel sorry for the Windrush immigrants, but are reassured that the government is tough on illegal immigration.

Well incompetence makes me less inclined to lend the Tories a vote again, and while my vote makes no difference to the outcome and any prospective Corbyn government, small numbers who might simply not vote Tory (even if they don't vote Labour) in the right place, could well be significant.

Even if people want a tough policy, what's the positive about a government being tough on illegal immigration if they are crap at handling it?

I'd be interested to know what May did to end the Home Office being 'unfit for purpose'.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

John Woodcock tweeting Amber Rudd has cocked up big time but labour need to be careful what they wish for.

I wish for John Woodcock to cross the floor.

Has it worked or have I ruined it by saying it out loud!!

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

John Woodcock tweeting Amber Rudd has cocked up big time but labour need to be careful what they wish for.

I wish for John Woodcock to cross the floor.

Has it worked or have I ruined it by saying it out loud!!

Given the nature of his defences of his own record, despite anti-Corbyn stance, I struggle to see how he could justify to himself let alone anyone else crossing the floor.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

The_Taxman said:

I am always surprised fracking for oil and gas has not been embraced by the UK Government and population. It would be a major boon to the economy and would positively impact the UK economy in terms of trade. People have double standards on fracking compared to say coal miners. Fracking is opposed on environmental grounds in the vicinity of the drill sites. Coal mining on the other hand can massively impact the local environment, contribute to climate change and screw the miners health sending them to an early grave but that seems to be alright. Personally, if they fracked for oil/gas in my community I would not be worried about it as long as it was not noisy. I would just think of the good to the UK economy from the extra revenue derived from the sales process.

The problem the UK has is that it's a densely populated country.

If you go to Texas, a guy with a ranch sells you a portion of the mineral rights, and then they drive everything in. Some of these ranches are the size of English towns. Finding space for the trucks, and for a giant (temporary) pond for the wastewater is easy. There's also a massive amount of oil collecting equipment already in place, and so getting your new oil into the pipeline network is easy.

In the UK, a 1,000 foot lateral well might cross a dozen property lines, and that's before we start thinking of how you get your oil or gas to market.

My personal view is that we won't see meaningful investments in tight oil and gas in the UK unless the oil price is seen as sustainably over $100-120.

It doesn't matter how many property lines a well crosses. In the UK a property owner has no right to the mineral resources below the ground. They are the property of the Crown under the 1934 Petroleum Production Act.

Basically a company with a licence can drill under your property and you have no rights to stop them. The only issue is wayleave for getting the oil or gas out.

You are better acquainted with UK law than me

That being said, I'm not sure how happy people will be when the 2,700 horsepower frac truck is running 24 hours a day for half a week a few hundred feet way.

Being densely populated imposes costs that simply aren't there in Texas or North Dakota. Now, if oil was $120/barrel, and LNG was $14 landed at Milford Haven, then those costs could be overcome. But at $80 and whatever spot LNG is these days, there aren't that many people that are interested investing.

Yorkcity said:

I think more people are pissed off with TSB than Amber Rudd, me included.

I would be an ex TSB customer by now

Danny565 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Danny565 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It was either Windrush for Labour, or continuing to focus Syria, which is also an area of weakness Labour.

I don't see why? Corbyn could've used his PMQs to talk about any number of things - the ongoing schools cuts (which a BBC vox-pop just on had a group of mums just bring up spontaneously), how crap wages are, rents, police cuts (in light of the rise in crime). Those are the issues that bigger groups of people think affect them personally, and would therefore get them out to vote.

Syria was the other big news story, the things you mention aren’t really big news stories atm. Quite frankly Corbyn would have faced major questions from his own party - both his big supporters as well as the PLP if he’d ignored Windrush.

I would argue part of the reason they're not big stories is because Corbyn's not been talking about them (and that Windrush has remained such a big story because Labour have been focussing so much fire on it, at the expense of more politically-fruitful topics).

Syria stopped being a big story as soon as it became clear that the strikes a few weeks ago were a one-time thing.

I don’t think Corbyn’s power is as such that he can make things big stories simply by taking about them at PMQs. Corbyn has talked about the issues you mention at PMQs before, and they haven’t always become big stories as a result. Syria was the other big story at the time, that’s why I mentioned it - it’s no longer anymore, but it was the other option for Labour when Windrush story gained more steam. Windrush has remained a big story not because of Labour, but because its a story that asks big questions of the govt’s competence. What made Windrush so big was that the right wing press started taking it seriously.

rcs1000 said:

You are better acquainted with UK law than me

That being said, I'm not sure how happy people will be when the 2,700 horsepower frac truck is running 24 hours a day for half a week a few hundred feet way.

Being densely populated imposes costs that simply aren't there in Texas or North Dakota. Now, if oil was $120/barrel, and LNG was $14 landed at Milford Haven, then those costs could be overcome. But at $80 and whatever spot LNG is these days, there aren't that many people that are interested investing.

People have been drilling for oil for decades right across the UK. Indeed I met my wife on a land rig at Biddenden in Kent. We were right next door to the village and part of the conditions of the licence for drilling was that we were not allowed to exceed noise limits between 6pm and 8am and at weekends. Such conditions are common in exploration and production drilling onshore in the UK.

I grew up in Newark in Nottinghamshire. Draw a circle with a 30 mile radius around the town and you will have enclosed more than 3,500 oil wells.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Yorkcity said:

I think more people are pissed off with TSB than Amber Rudd, me included.

I would be an ex TSB customer by now

I think you would struggle big g this week , to get anything done, like switching banks.Hard enough to get an up to date balance.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LordOfReason said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Of course it occurs to me that if Amber Rudd came out firing on all cylinders againsl labour's stance on immigration and hatred of targets it could just chime with the public and keep her in post

“I come to praise the targets, I denied, cancelled and buried Last week.”

Were we not getting somewhere around consensus the targets focus on strategy and process too much and lose sight of the individual? And that is going to be the change for the better?

The targets are very popular in the electorate

At some point the issue becomes competence rather than whatever the subject appears to be about. When the choice is "oops, I didn't read my emails or check my statements with anyone" or "I lied", you cease to be a plausible Cabinet Minister.

Yorkcity said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Yorkcity said:

I think more people are pissed off with TSB than Amber Rudd, me included.

I would be an ex TSB customer by now

I think you would struggle big g this week , to get anything done, like switching banks.Hard enough to get an up to date balance.

Yes of course and it is a disgrace. Indeed even compensation may not remedy some customers problems.

However, they would lose me fairly soon after once I was satisfied about my account(s)

david_herdson said:

Danny565 said:

Having said all this, we will all have to hail Diane Abbott as one of the political geniuses of her generation if she gets the scalp of Amber Rudd.

That's back to front. In any normal circumstance, a minister who's been through what Rudd has this last week would probably be out already and if not, would be looking at departure within 7 days. It should be harder to miss than to score from where she is.

Labour is paying the price for having a shadow cabinet that's not been trained in front-bench politics.

On the contrary, if we can ensure that damaged goods retains one of the Great Offices of State for the rest of the Parliament then Labour will have played a blinder.

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

Danny565 said:

Having said all this, we will all have to hail Diane Abbott as one of the political geniuses of her generation if she gets the scalp of Amber Rudd.

That's back to front. In any normal circumstance, a minister who's been through what Rudd has this last week would probably be out already and if not, would be looking at departure within 7 days. It should be harder to miss than to score from where she is.

Labour is paying the price for having a shadow cabinet that's not been trained in front-bench politics.

On the contrary, if we can ensure that damaged goods retains one of the Great Offices of State for the rest of the Parliament then Labour will have played a blinder.

Of course. That's why Abbott is soft-pedalling. Silly me.

Windrush is, for 99% of the population, either a short-term media story or something that reinforces existing opinions. It's the sort of technical, process issue that the Bubble loves but doesn't penetrate the general public's consciousness. If Rudd comes through this, she won't be damaged in the long term.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Yorkcity said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Yorkcity said:

I think more people are pissed off with TSB than Amber Rudd, me included.

I would be an ex TSB customer by now

I think you would struggle big g this week , to get anything done, like switching banks.Hard enough to get an up to date balance.

Yes of course and it is a disgrace. Indeed even compensation may not remedy some customers problems.

However, they would lose me fairly soon after once I was satisfied about my account(s)

Yes I agree , must be difficulti for some businesses and individuals , and the staff on the front line taking a lot of flack ,

Nemtynakht said:

It strikes me that a lot of those criticising Amber Rudd for not reading an email, are those who defended Corbyn's support for that vile piece of art. And with Rudd the main direction of her leadership has been away from the 'hostile environment' of her predecessor. You can hardly say JC has an appreciably better record on antisemitism than he did before.

Indeed not, however I am quite happy to say I didn't defend Corbyn on that and yet am content to criticise Rudd. That memo was the only time such targets ever came up? How fortunate indeed she missed the only such mention.

But regardless of if she did indeed miss it, and is genuinely sorry, he defence still comes down to not having done her job properly before, but can she pretty please stay on anyway. Tories don't accept that from Labour ministers, and Labour don't accept it from Tory ministers.

Floater said:

Trigger warning

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/27/donald-trumps-korea-triumph-should-earn-nobel-peace-prize/

If it pays off, he would be a worthy winner, bizarre as it feels to say.

And given his ego, being lauded as a peacemaker would presumably make him want to focus even more on making peace elsewhere.

stodge said:

Sean_F said:

The story doesn't hurt the Conservatives, so it makes no difference if it's in the news. People feel sorry for the Windrush immigrants, but are reassured that the government is tough on illegal immigration.

There's a line between "tough" and "fair". Being the former on immigration is fine as long as the latter is seen to be in effect. If it is seen that the toughness on immigration is more about meeting targets and picking on individuals who can be used to meet those targets quickly and cheaply, that will be massively counter-productive for the Conservatives.

What is wanted and needed is an immigration system that treats people fairly and where there is a genuine case for the individual to be allowed to remain, the system is seen to expedite the process and treat the individual with decency and dignity.

I've not heard any comments about Windrush in my circle of friends even from the massively pro Corbyn ones. For the left wing the thing I have seen commented on is Syria.

With Windrush there was one day where the Government was 'in trouble', although showing it is tough on immigration in the first place will have a lot of supporters, particularly core voters ahead of a local election. After that there was an apology and the government said Windrush immigrants are British, and compensation would be paid. Most people would think that was a fair response, no matter what the detail of who knew what when.

Rudd not remembering something from within a memo is hardly a surprise and I don't think she is incompetent for that reason. If she had received a weekly targets Summary, or report with an incriminating title then maybe she would be in more trouble.

Floater said:

Always good for a laugh our EU friends

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/27/guy-verhofstadt-brexit-will-delayed-unless-britain-makes-concessions/

Just on the bit not paywalled I am confused. The time for kicking the can down the road is coming to an end, so if we don't stop trying to kick the can down the road by not conceding things...they will kick it down the road themselves by extending the transition?

I recognise the EU as being in the stronger position, but doesn't that suggested approach go against it, as it says if we don't concede, they won't call our bluff on taking no deal? That cannot be what he means, is it clearer in the rest? (not that I even think we will make a bluff about taking no deal, I don't think there are the votes for that in parliament)

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

Danny565 said:

Having said all this, we will all have to hail Diane Abbott as one of the political geniuses of her generation if she gets the scalp of Amber Rudd.

That's back to front. In any normal circumstance, a minister who's been through what Rudd has this last week would probably be out already and if not, would be looking at departure within 7 days. It should be harder to miss than to score from where she is.

Labour is paying the price for having a shadow cabinet that's not been trained in front-bench politics.

On the contrary, if we can ensure that damaged goods retains one of the Great Offices of State for the rest of the Parliament then Labour will have played a blinder.

Of course. That's why Abbott is soft-pedalling. Silly me.

Windrush is, for 99% of the population, either a short-term media story or something that reinforces existing opinions. It's the sort of technical, process issue that the Bubble loves but doesn't penetrate the general public's consciousness. If Rudd comes through this, she won't be damaged in the long term.

It isn't the specifics of Windrush that matter, it is the evidence that Rudd doesn't have a clue:

1. There are no targets
2. Well, yes, there are targets, no nobody told me about them
3. Well, yes, somebody did tell me about the targets, but I didn't bother to read the memo

Well quite. That's a particularly harsh reading of all the statements, but the fact is if she does in fact resign over her statements, or is sacked over it, it won't exactly feel like a complete injustice, I suspect.

kle4 said:

Nemtynakht said:

It strikes me that a lot of those criticising Amber Rudd for not reading an email, are those who defended Corbyn's support for that vile piece of art. And with Rudd the main direction of her leadership has been away from the 'hostile environment' of her predecessor. You can hardly say JC has an appreciably better record on antisemitism than he did before.

Indeed not, however I am quite happy to say I didn't defend Corbyn on that and yet am content to criticise Rudd. That memo was the only time such targets ever came up? How fortunate indeed she missed the only such mention.

But regardless of if she did indeed miss it, and is genuinely sorry, he defence still comes down to not having done her job properly before, but can she pretty please stay on anyway. Tories don't accept that from Labour ministers, and Labour don't accept it from Tory ministers.

Floater said:

Trigger warning

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/27/donald-trumps-korea-triumph-should-earn-nobel-peace-prize/

If it pays off, he would be a worthy winner, bizarre as it feels to say.

And given his ego, being lauded as a peacemaker would presumably make him want to focus even more on making peace elsewhere.

I don't want to come across too much in her defence but I can imagine the behind the scenes meetings where her underlings have to tell her someone did know something after all, despite telling her yesterday that the opposite was true.

Like I said the counter balance is Corbyn support of antisemitism in art and Facebook groups, and a shadow Home Secretary who doesn't have a grasp of basic maths, so we are hardly blessed with a wealth of options!

In F1 semi news, something I never thought I'd see from one of the top drivers out there - not whinging about the car set up or engine or whatever when having been a bit slow.

Vettel was 11th, 1.3secs off the pace, and struggling for grip as he suffered lock-ups and off-track moments.

However, Vettel said his lack of pace was caused only by his own driving.

Pretty refreshing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43923287

Nemtynakht said:

stodge said:

Sean_F said:

The story doesn't hurt the Conservatives, so it makes no difference if it's in the news. People feel sorry for the Windrush immigrants, but are reassured that the government is tough on illegal immigration.

There's a line between "tough" and "fair". Being the former on immigration is fine as long as the latter is seen to be in effect. If it is seen that the toughness on immigration is more about meeting targets and picking on individuals who can be used to meet those targets quickly and cheaply, that will be massively counter-productive for the Conservatives.

What is wanted and needed is an immigration system that treats people fairly and where there is a genuine case for the individual to be allowed to remain, the system is seen to expedite the process and treat the individual with decency and dignity.

I've not heard any comments about Windrush in my circle of friends even from the massively pro Corbyn ones. For the left wing the thing I have seen commented on is Syria.

With Windrush there was one day where the Government was 'in trouble', although showing it is tough on immigration in the first place will have a lot of supporters, particularly core voters ahead of a local election. After that there was an apology and the government said Windrush immigrants are British, and compensation would be paid. Most people would think that was a fair response, no matter what the detail of who knew what when.

Rudd not remembering something from within a memo is hardly a surprise and I don't think she is incompetent for that reason. If she had received a weekly targets Summary, or report with an incriminating title then maybe she would be in more trouble.

Tbf, that YouGov poll shows that 64% think the government handled the issue badly. So while supporting the hostile environment policy, it seems most people aren’t happy with the government’s response to this. My Corbynista friends have mentioned both Syria and Windrush, but tbh I don’t think anecdotes really tell us much either way. Few people’s anecdotes on here pointed to the last GE result.

TGOHF said:

Rudd isn’t going anywhere.

Certainly not as PM anyway......

Nemtynakht said:

TGOHF said:

Nobody know or work with has ever mentioned Windrush because none of them are West Indian. Multiculturalism doesn’t exist outside London or Richard Curtis films.

Indeed this has actually been an issue for a while with numerous stories in local press. However it's only when the Guardian reports on it it becomes a story!

The Guardian have been reporting on it for sometime. It was the right wing press picking up on it that made it become a story, because then it went beyond the left wing press. Although it’s quite frankly weird of TGHOF to believe multiculturalism only exists in London.

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

Danny565 said:

Having said all this, we will all have to hail Diane Abbott as one of the political geniuses of her generation if she gets the scalp of Amber Rudd.

That's back to front. In any normal circumstance, a minister who's been through what Rudd has this last week would probably be out already and if not, would be looking at departure within 7 days. It should be harder to miss than to score from where she is.

Labour is paying the price for having a shadow cabinet that's not been trained in front-bench politics.

On the contrary, if we can ensure that damaged goods retains one of the Great Offices of State for the rest of the Parliament then Labour will have played a blinder.

Of course. That's why Abbott is soft-pedalling. Silly me.

Windrush is, for 99% of the population, either a short-term media story or something that reinforces existing opinions. It's the sort of technical, process issue that the Bubble loves but doesn't penetrate the general public's consciousness. If Rudd comes through this, she won't be damaged in the long term.

It isn't the specifics of Windrush that matter, it is the evidence that Rudd doesn't have a clue:

1. There are no targets
2. Well, yes, there are targets, no nobody told me about them
3. Well, yes, somebody did tell me about the targets, but I didn't bother to read the memo

Hopeless, hopeless, hopeless.

And I remember when people like Robin Cook or David Davis were ruthless as shadow cabinet members exploiting government weaknesses, contradictions and errors. Rudd, however, is up against Dianne Abbott.

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Nemtynakht said:

stodge said:

Sean_F said:

The story doesn't hurt the Conservatives, so it makes no difference if it's in the news. People feel sorry for the Windrush immigrants, but are reassured that the government is tough on illegal immigration.

There's a line between "tough" and "fair". Being the former on immigration is fine as long as the latter is seen to be in effect. If it is seen that the toughness on immigration is more about meeting targets and picking on individuals who can be used to meet those targets quickly and cheaply, that will be massively counter-productive for the Conservatives.

What is wanted and needed is an immigration system that treats people fairly and where there is a genuine case for the individual to be allowed to remain, the system is seen to expedite the process and treat the individual with decency and dignity.

I've not heard any comments about Windrush in my circle of friends even from the massively pro Corbyn ones. For the left wing the thing I have seen commented on is Syria.

With Windrush there was one day where the Government was 'in trouble', although showing it is tough on immigration in the first place will have a lot of supporters, particularly core voters ahead of a local election. After that there was an apology and the government said Windrush immigrants are British, and compensation would be paid. Most people would think that was a fair response, no matter what the detail of who knew what when.

Rudd not remembering something from within a memo is hardly a surprise and I don't think she is incompetent for that reason. If she had received a weekly targets Summary, or report with an incriminating title then maybe she would be in more trouble.

Few people’s anecdotes on here pointed to the last GE result.

Only David Herdson's

Yep. And even then, the fact it was such a shock said it all. Nothing anyone else had said had really prepared anyone for it.

The_Apocalypse said:

Nemtynakht said:

stodge said:

Sean_F said:

The story doesn't hurt the Conservatives, so it makes no difference if it's in the news. People feel sorry for the Windrush immigrants, but are reassured that the government is tough on illegal immigration.

There's a line between "tough" and "fair". Being the former on immigration is fine as long as the latter is seen to be in effect. If it is seen that the toughness on immigration is more about meeting targets and picking on individuals who can be used to meet those targets quickly and cheaply, that will be massively counter-productive for the Conservatives.

What is wanted and needed is an immigration system that treats people fairly and where there is a genuine case for the individual to be allowed to remain, the system is seen to expedite the process and treat the individual with decency and dignity.

I've not heard any comments about Windrush in my circle of friends even from the massively pro Corbyn ones. For the left wing the thing I have seen commented on is Syria.

With Windrush there was one day where the Government was 'in trouble', although showing it is tough on immigration in the first place will have a lot of supporters, particularly core voters ahead of a local election. After that there was an apology and the government said Windrush immigrants are British, and compensation would be paid. Most people would think that was a fair response, no matter what the detail of who knew what when.

Rudd not remembering something from within a memo is hardly a surprise and I don't think she is incompetent for that reason. If she had received a weekly targets Summary, or report with an incriminating title then maybe she would be in more trouble.

Tbf, that YouGov poll shows that 64% think the government handled the issue badly. So while supporting the hostile environment policy, it seems most people aren’t happy with the government’s response to this. My Corbynista friends have mentioned both Syria and Windrush, but tbh I don’t think anecdotes really tell us much either way. Few people’s anecdotes on here pointed to the last GE result.

I don't agree. It's the memes etc on Facebook that I have seen from a very large number of people about Syria. People are still untrusting towards foreign military involvement after Iraq. Personally I think that May has much much more to answer for on Windrush than Rudd, but Labour know it is not the sort of thing that would bring her down, so they are desperately trying to hang something on Rudd. Obviously this will help them ahead of local elections, but if I were them I wouldn't waste my energy. Theresa May has a habit of shooting herself in the foot so just wait for the mistake.

Nemtynakht said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Nemtynakht said:

stodge said:

Sean_F said:

The story doesn't hurt the Conservatives, so it makes no difference if it's in the news. People feel sorry for the Windrush immigrants, but are reassured that the government is tough on illegal immigration.

There

I've not heard any comments about Windrush in my circle of friends even from the massively pro Corbyn ones. For the left wing the thing I have seen commented on is Syria.

With Windrush there was one day where the Government was 'in trouble', although showing it is tough on immigration in the first place will have a lot of supporters, particularly core voters ahead of a local election. After that there was an apology and the government said Windrush immigrants are British, and compensation would be paid. Most people would think that was a fair response, no matter what the detail of who knew what when.

Rudd not remembering something from within a memo is hardly a surprise and I don't think she is incompetent for that reason. If she had received a weekly targets Summary, or report with an incriminating title then maybe she would be in more trouble.

Tbf, that YouGov poll shows that 64% think the government handled the issue badly. So while supporting the hostile environment policy, it seems most people aren’t happy with the government’s response to this. My Corbynista friends have mentioned both Syria and Windrush, but tbh I don’t think anecdotes really tell us much either way. Few people’s anecdotes on here pointed to the last GE result.

I don't agree. It's the memes etc on Facebook that I have seen from a very large number of people about Syria. People are still untrusting towards foreign military involvement after Iraq. Personally I think that May has much much more to answer for on Windrush than Rudd, but Labour know it is not the sort of thing that would bring her down, so they are desperately trying to hang something on Rudd. Obviously this will help them ahead of local elections, but if I were them I wouldn't waste my energy. Theresa May has a habit of shooting herself in the foot so just wait for the mistake.

Well, both Sky Data and YouGov showed a rise in support for the strikes after they happened. May’s approval ratings rose. So those Facebook memes don’t seem to be representative in this case. While I agree that people are generally sceptical towards military action since Iraq, May reassured people that the strikes were not about regime change.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

You are better acquainted with UK law than me

That being said, I'm not sure how happy people will be when the 2,700 horsepower frac truck is running 24 hours a day for half a week a few hundred feet way.

Being densely populated imposes costs that simply aren't there in Texas or North Dakota. Now, if oil was $120/barrel, and LNG was $14 landed at Milford Haven, then those costs could be overcome. But at $80 and whatever spot LNG is these days, there aren't that many people that are interested investing.

People have been drilling for oil for decades right across the UK. Indeed I met my wife on a land rig at Biddenden in Kent. We were right next door to the village and part of the conditions of the licence for drilling was that we were not allowed to exceed noise limits between 6pm and 8am and at weekends. Such conditions are common in exploration and production drilling onshore in the UK.

I grew up in Newark in Nottinghamshire. Draw a circle with a 30 mile radius around the town and you will have enclosed more than 3,500 oil wells.

I've been at guest of BP at Wytch Farm

I'm guess that most of those wells were for fairly conventional oil and gas, though. So, a single site would see a vertical well of a few thousand feet, with minimal stimulation. And after that - with the exception of the occasional workover, that would be it for drilling activity. And one well could probably drain a fairly wide expanse of rock.

Because modern tight wells are draining such a relatively small area of rock, the economics (in Texas) require two twelve hour shifts of drilling, seven days a week. If you're only using your rig 10 hours a weekday, your costs will be double.

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/james_lyons_n5/status/989989246479060992?s=21

Both are products of their environments. Obama was elected - in part - because the US was sick of entanglements after Iraq. And Trump was - again in part - elected because talking to dictators was seen as a failure.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

You are better acquainted with UK law than me

That being said, I'm not sure how happy people will be when the 2,700 horsepower frac truck is running 24 hours a day for half a week a few hundred feet way.

Being densely populated imposes costs that simply aren't there in Texas or North Dakota. Now, if oil was $120/barrel, and LNG was $14 landed at Milford Haven, then those costs could be overcome. But at $80 and whatever spot LNG is these days, there aren't that many people that are interested investing.

People have been drilling for oil for decades right across the UK. Indeed I met my wife on a land rig at Biddenden in Kent. We were right next door to the village and part of the conditions of the licence for drilling was that we were not allowed to exceed noise limits between 6pm and 8am and at weekends. Such conditions are common in exploration and production drilling onshore in the UK.

I grew up in Newark in Nottinghamshire. Draw a circle with a 30 mile radius around the town and you will have enclosed more than 3,500 oil wells.

I've been at guest of BP at Wytch Farm

I'm guess that most of those wells were for fairly conventional oil and gas, though. So, a single site would see a vertical well of a few thousand feet, with minimal stimulation. And after that - with the exception of the occasional workover, that would be it for drilling activity. And one well could probably drain a fairly wide expanse of rock.

Because modern tight wells are draining such a relatively small area of rock, the economics (in Texas) require two twelve hour shifts of drilling, seven days a week. If you're only using your rig 10 hours a weekday, your costs will be double.

I think you may not have a handle on how long it takes to drill a conventional oil well. Onshore it would be anything from 4 to 8 weeks as a minimum. Offshore 8-12 weeks as a minimum. I have worked on a well that took more than a year to drill. Fracking wells take far less time to drill than conventional oil wells.

You're right: much more of my time has been spent on unconventionals (as they used to be known).