Seems like a great issue to energise the sandal wearers of the left. Will it lead labour back to 35%? The fact that this is the question tells us how far we've moved in just a few months. It is also very definitely a QTWTAIN!
Labour remain with nothing to say on all the big questions of the day - and apparently it's a good idea that they presage their big crackdown on immigration with a PMQ effort to help bring immigrants from the Mediterranean to first Europe and then - who knows (ask the Mayor of Calais) - onto the UK. I really don't think so.
Ed is making up for lost time. He forgot to mention immigration in his big speech too. Now he can make up for it and say he wants more immigration. He even has prospective MPs who believe such immigrants should get social housing over local people if their "needs" are greater.
Evidence?
Our very own NPXMP came on here and proudly announced that if a migrant family's "needs" were higher than a local family's then they should receive priority in social housing. I am sure he is not alone in the Labour party on this.
I admire his honesty and truly believe this is what he believes. I am not sure it will make it to his election address though.
What some of you appear not to be considering is that UKIP exist and score well. Labour a few points ahead of the Tories in a 3 party system would not be good. Labour a few points ahead with the kippers in town is OK.
Remember the basics. National poll percentages does not translate into seats won, especially with an extra party in the mix. A strong UKIP vote splits the Tory vote across the south and I expect that they will pick up a tranche of seats. In others Labour will get back in as the right splits. In Labour seats in he north I expect UKIP will pick up a couple, but in the rest Labour get a reduced majority.
FPTP is a joke. Has been for years. As you will now witness where Labour gets a working majority with less than a third of the vote. Perhaps then the outrage will be enough to get a proportional electoral system?
We've had 35% and 36% with no real backing for a change in FPTP (you could even say it was endorsed in the referendum, if you wanted to be awkward), so why should a further drop to 32% or 33% do the trick? http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm
Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.
This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.
Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?
The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.
My guess is that wanting to save desperate people from drowning is a trait that goes well beyond the left. I could be wrong though. Clearly you have a problem with it.
When the guardianistas et al show the same outrage over the child abuse issues in Rotherham/Manchester/Rochdale, etc as over this issue maybe you will have a point and can move beyond snide point scoring.
Clearly the Tory tribe is struggling to defend this appalling decision.
Go back to the days after the publication of Rotherham report and you'll see lots of outrage over the blind eye turned towards the rape of girls by Pakistani men because of Political Correctness.
Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med. This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well."
The LD-Lab switchers are only *one* key swing group. Two others, of more recent vintage but of growing importance, are Con-UKIP and Lab-UKIP. Labour's stance will not play so well there, though those opposed to it will have to be careful as to how to do so.
Agreed. But you remain in denial about the LD switchers which represents a bigger move than the increase in CON vote from GE97 to GE10.
I know you find this tedious but it happens to be correct.
Not in net terms.
The increase in the Con share from 1997 to 2010 was about 5.4%.
The LD-Lab switchers in the YouGov poll quoted were 30% of the 2010 LD vote i.e. 6.9% BUT the LD-Con switchers were given as 12% of the 2010 LD vote i.e. 2.8%, so the net effect of the 2010 LD defectors is a move of 4.1% to Labour (or a net swing of just over 2% from Con to Lab).
Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives. I've spent some time listening to people in various hot spots. I didn't actually realise we have been letting anyone in the EU arrive willy nilly. There is no doubt at all that some places are being swamped by migrants, especially from eastern Europe. There's no point dressing this up any other way.
You must have inhabited very refined bubbles, both in real life and on the internet, not to have realised that.
I wonder how many other people still think that.
You get a completely different image of immigration to people who struggle to get a job at the Polish owned construction firm that has undercut all the British ones.
Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.
This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.
Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?
The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.
My guess is that wanting to save desperate people from drowning is a trait that goes well beyond the left. I could be wrong though. Clearly you have a problem with it.
When the guardianistas et al show the same outrage over the child abuse issues in Rotherham/Manchester/Rochdale, etc as over this issue maybe you will have a point and can move beyond snide point scoring.
It is quite telling isn't it?
Will REd really talk about this issue when he has ignored the other?
Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives. I've spent some time listening to people in various hot spots. I didn't actually realise we have been letting anyone in the EU arrive willy nilly. There is no doubt at all that some places are being swamped by migrants, especially from eastern Europe. There's no point dressing this up any other way.
You must have inhabited very refined bubbles, both in real life and on the internet, not to have realised that.
I wonder how many other people still think that.
If you're wealthy and work in consulting, law or finance, you get in your taxi with a foreign driver each morning, work with well integrated skilled foreigners each day, eat at the trendy new restaurant with ethnic cuisine at lunch, and come back home to your foreign au pair and cleaner in the evening. You get a completely different image of immigration to people who struggle to get a job at the Polish owned construction firm that has undercut all the British ones, deal with Romanian beggars on your way home, struggle to communicate at the Lithuanian supermarket that replaced the local butcher and grocer, and see a gang of Pakistani youths hanging out around the young girls outside your house.
How many Polish-owned construction firms are there, and secondly how many of them employ only their own nationals. Must admit, though, that the local car-wash seems to have only EU immigrants. However, before they arrived there wasn’t a local car-wash firm.
Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives. I've spent some time listening to people in various hot spots. I didn't actually realise we have been letting anyone in the EU arrive willy nilly. There is no doubt at all that some places are being swamped by migrants, especially from eastern Europe. There's no point dressing this up any other way.
You must have inhabited very refined bubbles, both in real life and on the internet, not to have realised that.
I wonder how many other people still think that.
You get a completely different image of immigration to people who struggle to get a job at the Polish owned construction firm that has undercut all the British ones.
Link please.
There was a BBC documentary on immigration a couple months back. There was a British worker who got taken round a Polish construction firm and demanded to know from the Polish boss why ALL the workers were Polish. The manager-owner said that it was hard to know who to trust in construction because there are so many cowboys about, so he only hired people on a recommendation from current workers. That meant they were inevitably all Polish.
OT I see the Whig party has reformed !! A bit depressing to see their spokesman (leader?) answer a question as to what their policies are by saying its whatever the people want !
Admire the history though and if they are a true Whig party (as opposed to another 'nobody understands us' sort of rabble like Russell Brand) I might even try to vote for them!!
Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.
This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.
Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?
There is a swathe of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this.
The type of people who for years have been voting tactically in marginals to keep obnoxious Tories out - the kind of people who think Tory theories about what drives humans to do stuff are utterly bonkers.
The type of people who keep the Tory poll share languishing only just above 30% even when Labour are seemingly shedding votes. That's quite a big horde (not hoard).
These boats are so dangerous that the only way of making them vaguely safe is to escort each and every one of them. So what we are talking about is an official, quasi-legal and EU sponsored mode of entry from Africa to the EU. That's what is meant by the claim the Italian navy "rescued" 150 000 (!) last year - it didn't winch that number of bodies out of the water. If that's what you want, say so.
Have a look at the business model of the people who run these boats. They are probably the most evil business grouping in the world, up there with the drug barons. So evil they would probably vote UKIP. You want to give their industry a present of several billion quid. Well done.
But politically attacking on this at pmqs is certainly they way to go for ed. He will boost his popularity immeasurably with all demographics and consolidate his recovery in the polls. I hope he has the courage to go for it.
Is there any data on the number of 2010 LD Lab switchers who might go green? I've noticed a tendency among some of my lefty friends in that direction; I think they're looking for a way to vote that doesn't mean they're backing useless Ed, much like they went LD previously to avoid backing Gordon
"Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
I'm happy to defend both and criticise both.
A few Labour MPs (particularly Northern ones) and others (you, included) were scathing about their own party's response, but some left-leaners were falling over themselves to shut down discussion.
There are Tories who see everything in terms of political advantage too.
There's a humanitarian crisis. There's also a lot of economic migration which disproportionately affects certain sections of the UK community. Socrates is right in highlighting the different perceptions.
I'm sure Guardian writers would wish things were different. but when I see them offering to share their homes with migrants or giving chunks of their salaries to aid charities, I'll take them seriously.
Must admit, though, that the local car-wash seems to have only EU immigrants. However, before they arrived there wasn’t a local car-wash firm.
Of course. If you increase the number of low wage earners in the economy, you hold down the wages of those on low income. That means low wage activity is more economically viable and you get more of it. It's still bad news for the existing low wage earners.
Great for the well-off though. That's why they're so determined to smear anyone that threatens their little gambit with the "racist" tag. An honest and open debate would mess it all up.
Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.
This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.
Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?
There is a swathe of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this.
The type of people who for years have been voting tactically in marginals to keep obnoxious Tories out - the kind of people who think Tory theories about what drives humans to do stuff are utterly bonkers.
The type of people who keep the Tory poll share languishing only just above 30% even when Labour are seemingly shedding votes.
That's quite a big horde (not hoard).
These boats are so dangerous that the only way of making them vaguely safe is to escort each and every one of them. So what we are talking about is an official, quasi-legal and EU sponsored mode of entry from Africa to the EU. That's what is meant by the claim the Italian navy "rescued" 150 000 (!) last year - it didn't winch that number of bodies out of the water. If that's what you want, say so.
Have a look at the business model of the people who run these boats. They are probably the most evil business grouping in the world, up there with the drug barons. So evil they would probably vote UKIP. You want to give their industry a present of several billion quid. Well done.
But politically attacking on this at pmqs is certainly they way to go for ed. He will boost his popularity immeasurably with all demographics and consolidate his recovery in the polls. I hope he has the courage to go for it.
If people are in the water they need rescuing.
No ifs or buts or waffling about what traffickers might or might not be doing.
I hope Ed goes for it too. He needs to shore up his base right now, and this is part of the way to do it. All those anti-Tory tactical votes to hoover up.
Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.
This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.
Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?
The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.
My guess is that wanting to save desperate people from drowning is a trait that goes well beyond the left. I could be wrong though. Clearly you have a problem with it.
When the guardianistas et al show the same outrage over the child abuse issues in Rotherham/Manchester/Rochdale, etc as over this issue maybe you will have a point and can move beyond snide point scoring.
Clearly the Tory tribe is struggling to defend this appalling decision.
Go back to the days after the publication of Rotherham report and you'll see lots of outrage over the blind eye turned towards the rape of girls by Pakistani men because of Political Correctness.
Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
As far as I can tell, the decision to end Mare Nostrum has been taken by all governments concerned.
I was present this summer at an inter-government meeting of Euopean Mediterranean countries.
It was concluded unanimously that African-route immigration had to be discouraged as it was becoming beyond the resources of those countries to cope with it.
They concluded also that most were economic migrants who believe the streets of Europe and especially London are 'paved with gold.' Most ex-Africa migration is caused by hyped expectations of economic growth by local politicians who want to get their hands on power and the personal economic benefits that brings. Corruption is rife in many of those countries and so essential infrastructure money is diverted into private accounts.
The meeting also concluded that Europe needed a common economic approach to immigrants which would mean no benefits for the first five years.
Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives. I've spent some time listening to people in various hot spots. I didn't actually realise we have been letting anyone in the EU arrive willy nilly. There is no doubt at all that some places are being swamped by migrants, especially from eastern Europe. There's no point dressing this up any other way.
You must have inhabited very refined bubbles, both in real life and on the internet, not to have realised that.
I wonder how many other people still think that.
If you're wealthy and work in consulting, law or finance, you get in your taxi with a foreign driver each morning, work with well integrated skilled foreigners each day, eat at the trendy new restaurant with ethnic cuisine at lunch, and come back home to your foreign au pair and cleaner in the evening. You get a completely different image of immigration to people who struggle to get a job at the Polish owned construction firm that has undercut all the British ones, deal with Romanian beggars on your way home, struggle to communicate at the Lithuanian supermarket that replaced the local butcher and grocer, and see a gang of Pakistani youths hanging out around the young girls outside your house.
You missed out...if you send your children to a private school where the only foreigners are the children of Russian oligarchs, instead of Maintained Schools (especially Catholic ones) where suddenly English has become a minority language. Especially felt at the school gates when Polish parents speak to each other in......Polish, surprise, surprise.
Seems like a great issue to energise the sandal wearers of the left. Will it lead labour back to 35%? The fact that this is the question tells us how far we've moved in just a few months. It is also very definitely a QTWTAIN!
Labour remain with nothing to say on all the big questions of the day - and apparently it's a good idea that they presage their big crackdown on immigration with a PMQ effort to help bring immigrants from the Mediterranean to first Europe and then - who knows (ask the Mayor of Calais) - onto the UK. I really don't think so.
Ed is making up for lost time. He forgot to mention immigration in his big speech too. Now he can make up for it and say he wants more immigration. He even has prospective MPs who believe such immigrants should get social housing over local people if their "needs" are greater.
Evidence?
Our very own NPXMP came on here and proudly announced that if a migrant family's "needs" were higher than a local family's then they should receive priority in social housing. I am sure he is not alone in the Labour party on this.
I admire his honesty and truly believe this is what he believes. I am not sure it will make it to his election address though.
There is no way for social housing to be allocated that will not turn out, on inspection, to be racist. The only fair solution is to abolish it now. This will lead to white people - particularly the elderly and children - dying of exposure in our parks and on our streets, just as black men are doing in international waters to-day. That's race equality for you.
The idea that kippers are all Tories on holiday is nonsense.
The point that was made was about immigration policy, not party identity.
UKIP policy and Tory policy on many things is fag-wrapper wide.
UKIP will suffer the same fate as the Lib Dems in time when it becomes obvious what a disparate bunch they really are.
Look at the way the LD vote has splintered. It's going all over the place which suggests no commonality of belief ever really existed.
"UKIP will suffer the same fate as the Lib Dems in time when it becomes obvious what a disparate bunch they really are."
With Farage - who is little more than a showman - in charge, then yes. Someone like Carswell may be able to mould UKIP into something more sustainable. But Farage needs to go first.
Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.
This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.
Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?
The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.
My guess is that wanting to save desperate people from drowning is a trait that goes well beyond the left. I could be wrong though. Clearly you have a problem with it.
When the guardianistas et al show the same outrage over the child abuse issues in Rotherham/Manchester/Rochdale, etc as over this issue maybe you will have a point and can move beyond snide point scoring.
Clearly the Tory tribe is struggling to defend this appalling decision.
Go back to the days after the publication of Rotherham report and you'll see lots of outrage over the blind eye turned towards the rape of girls by Pakistani men because of Political Correctness.
Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
As far as I can tell, the decision to end Mare Nostrum has been taken by all governments concerned.
And a lack of moral backbone to oppose it makes it worse.
Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.
This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.
Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?
There is a swathe of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this.
The type of people who for years have been voting tactically in marginals to keep obnoxious Tories out - the kind of people who think Tory theories about what drives humans to do stuff are utterly bonkers.
The type of people who keep the Tory poll share languishing only just above 30% even when Labour are seemingly shedding votes.
That's quite a big horde (not hoard).
These boats are so dangerous that the only way of making them vaguely safe is to escort each and every one of them. So what we are talking about is an official, quasi-legal and EU sponsored mode of entry from Africa to the EU. That's what is meant by the claim the Italian navy "rescued" 150 000 (!) last year - it didn't winch that number of bodies out of the water. If that's what you want, say so.
Have a look at the business model of the people who run these boats. They are probably the most evil business grouping in the world, up there with the drug barons. So evil they would probably vote UKIP. You want to give their industry a present of several billion quid. Well done.
But politically attacking on this at pmqs is certainly they way to go for ed. He will boost his popularity immeasurably with all demographics and consolidate his recovery in the polls. I hope he has the courage to go for it.
If people are in the water they need rescuing.
No ifs or buts or waffling about what traffickers might or might not be doing.
I hope Ed goes for it too. He needs to shore up his base right now, and this is part of the way to do it. All those anti-Tory tactical votes to hoover up.
"No ifs or buts" - are you Hugh?
We could save millions of African children every year from premature death, just by sticking 3p on the income tax. 3 measly p. No ifs or buts. Do you want those children to die? Would you starve to death if your income tax went up by 3p? YES OR NO?
We do search and rescue in our own exceptionally extensive and dangerous coastal waters. It's absolutely great if other countries do it in theirs.
The idea that kippers are all Tories on holiday is nonsense.
The point that was made was about immigration policy, not party identity.
UKIP policy and Tory policy on many things is fag-wrapper wide.
UKIP will suffer the same fate as the Lib Dems in time when it becomes obvious what a disparate bunch they really are.
Look at the way the LD vote has splintered. It's going all over the place which suggests no commonality of belief ever really existed.
"UKIP will suffer the same fate as the Lib Dems in time when it becomes obvious what a disparate bunch they really are."
With Farage - who is little more than a showman - in charge, then yes. Someone like Carswell may be able to mould UKIP into something more sustainable. But Farage needs to go first.
The "little more than a showman" Farage has moved UKIP from a couple percent of the vote to a sixth of the electorate. You are severely underestimating him. He knows when to do populist showmanship, when to get rid of embarrassing figures, and when to promote more serious people like Diane James and Paul Nuttall. At some point it will make strategic sense to project a more serious image, and I'm sure Farage will do that then, but right now UKIP are still surging via populism.
"there is a body of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this. "
You have defined accurately why a policyless Labour Party are still ahead of a relatively economically successful Tory party. There is something so transparently bestial about Tories and their sidekicks in UKIP that nothing they achieve can stop them being vote repellant to large swathes of human beings who do what they can to stop them
Seems like a great issue to energise the sandal wearers of the left. Will it lead labour back to 35%? The fact that this is the question tells us how far we've moved in just a few months. It is also very definitely a QTWTAIN!
Labour remain with nothing to say on all the big questions of the day - and apparently it's a good idea that they presage their big crackdown on immigration with a PMQ effort to help bring immigrants from the Mediterranean to first Europe and then - who knows (ask the Mayor of Calais) - onto the UK. I really don't think so.
Ed is making up for lost time. He forgot to mention immigration in his big speech too. Now he can make up for it and say he wants more immigration. He even has prospective MPs who believe such immigrants should get social housing over local people if their "needs" are greater.
Evidence?
Our very own NPXMP came on here and proudly announced that if a migrant family's "needs" were higher than a local family's then they should receive priority in social housing. I am sure he is not alone in the Labour party on this.
I admire his honesty and truly believe this is what he believes. I am not sure it will make it to his election address though.
There is no way for social housing to be allocated that will not turn out, on inspection, to be racist. The only fair solution is to abolish it now. This will lead to white people - particularly the elderly and children - dying of exposure in our parks and on our streets, just as black men are doing in international waters to-day. That's race equality for you.
You could allocate social housing in any sort of way you want. It's just that the political class does not have the courage or will to do so.
Non "racist" ways would include: -strict adherence to waiting lists -UK passport holders only (unless you think only whites have UK passports) -long term residency in UK -based on NI/tax contributions
Note the EU largely allows member states to determine their own social benefit rules.
I see the tired use of the r-word being brought up. It used to shut down any sort of debate. I guess anything that does not fast track non-white economic migrants into social housing is racist in your eyes though.
"there is a body of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this. "
You have defined accurately why a policyless Labour Party are still ahead of a relatively economically successful Tory party. There is something so transparently bestial about Tories and their sidekicks in UKIP that nothing they achieve can stop them being vote repellant to large swathes of human beings who do what they can to stop them
Its not an excellent post its a post where he has allowed his prejudice and sense of moral superiority to run away with his emotions.
As Jonny Jimmy's posts have pointed out, a generalised solution involving acceptance of drowning simply isn't going to work - quite apart from refugee policy, it breaches a fundamental law of seafaring: if you can help someone not to drown, you must do so. Returning them to their point of origin is dodgy since in some cases you will directly sending them to a different king of death - sure, many will be men, but do we really send a Yazidi man back to ISIL territory? And do we send everyone back without trying to distinguish rape victims from would-be plumbers?
A "safe haven" in some peaceful North African location funded by the EU is possible, but unless we deal reasonably with the people in it, then like the refugee camps on the Syrian border it will just grow and grow as people desperate to escape from ISIL and other threats see it as the lesser evil.
What's needed in the long term is a safe haven plus a managed migration pollicy, using the existing law all over Europe to accept genuine refugees and return people without a plausible case for fear. In the meantime we should rescue drowning people and stop bloody arguing about it. And yes, IF we've accepted a refugee and they need housing urgently, they should get priority over less urgent cases.
As for the doorstep as raised by Socrates, I tell voters just the same as I say here. They don't all agree, but on the whole they appreciate candour, and it gives greater credibility on issues where they do agree. A non-trivial part of the Kipper phenomenon is people fed up with politicians evading questions.
The idea that kippers are all Tories on holiday is nonsense.
The point that was made was about immigration policy, not party identity.
UKIP policy and Tory policy on many things is fag-wrapper wide.
UKIP will suffer the same fate as the Lib Dems in time when it becomes obvious what a disparate bunch they really are.
Look at the way the LD vote has splintered. It's going all over the place which suggests no commonality of belief ever really existed.
"UKIP will suffer the same fate as the Lib Dems in time when it becomes obvious what a disparate bunch they really are."
With Farage - who is little more than a showman - in charge, then yes. Someone like Carswell may be able to mould UKIP into something more sustainable. But Farage needs to go first.
The "little more than a showman" Farage has moved UKIP from a couple percent of the vote to a sixth of the electorate. You are severely underestimating him. He knows when to do populist showmanship, when to get rid of embarrassing figures, and when to promote more serious people like Diane James and Paul Nuttall. At some point it will make strategic sense to project a more serious image, and I'm sure Farage will do that then, but right now UKIP are still surging via populism.
No, I'm not underestimating him. He's doing the job he needs to do, which is play on real and perceived grievances of large sections of the electorate. For a single-issue party, that is fine: those disparate groups who believe in EU withdrawal (UKIP's original raison d'être), will stick with it.
But Farage has moved UKIP away from that one issue towards a more nebulous platform. Short term, it is working. Long term, UKIP needs more. Farage isn't the guy to do it, and when it's done there is a good chance the party will lose much of its support. That's where people more interested in policy than populism should take over.
Seems like a great issue to energise the sandal wearers of the left. Will it lead labour back to 35%? The fact that this is the question tells us how far we've moved in just a few months. It is also very definitely a QTWTAIN!
Labour remain with nothing to say on all the big questions of the day - and apparently it's a good idea that they presage their big crackdown on immigration with a PMQ effort to help bring immigrants from the Mediterranean to first Europe and then - who knows (ask the Mayor of Calais) - onto the UK. I really don't think so.
Ed is making up for lost time. He forgot to mention immigration in his big speech too. Now he can make up for it and say he wants more immigration. He even has prospective MPs who believe such immigrants should get social housing over local people if their "needs" are greater.
Evidence?
Our very own NPXMP came on here and proudly announced that if a migrant family's "needs" were higher than a local family's then they should receive priority in social housing. I am sure he is not alone in the Labour party on this.
I admire his honesty and truly believe this is what he believes. I am not sure it will make it to his election address though.
There is no way for social housing to be allocated that will not turn out, on inspection, to be racist. The only fair solution is to abolish it now. This will lead to white people - particularly the elderly and children - dying of exposure in our parks and on our streets, just as black men are doing in international waters to-day. That's race equality for you.
You could allocate social housing in any sort of way you want. It's just that the political class does not have the courage or will to do so.
Non "racist" ways would include: -strict adherence to waiting lists -UK passport holders only (unless you think only whites have UK passports) -long term residency in UK -based on NI/tax contributions
Note the EU largely allows member states to determine their own social benefit rules.
I see the tired use of the r-word being brought up. It used to shut down any sort of debate. I guess anything that does not fast track non-white economic migrants into social housing is racist in your eyes though.
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
People dismiss UKIP at their peril. A lot of people are disengaged from political parties but angry as hell. To secure their vote Farage needs to do two things - remind them why they are angry, and show that he is credible. He succeeds on both fronts.
I'm sure Guardian writers would wish things were different. but when I see them offering to share their homes with migrants or giving chunks of their salaries to aid charities, I'll take them seriously.
I have personal experience of Guardianista hypocrisy and double standards.
The Polish influx in 2004/5 led to Catholic schools being filled full to bursting. It also meant that non-Catholics were excluded as Catholics are given preference. As Poles are undeniably Catholic (St. John Paul, anyone?), they were preferred over rather more Anglo liberal applicants.
Cue outrage of Guardianistas against "discrimination", in reality meaning "screw the Poles".
I've been ridiculed in the past for saying that this would happen. Hopefully it now has.
Let's hope it works. But it sounds like it's just lithium-ion at heart, so I doubt it's a vast improvement on existing tech. The test installations should tell us more.
"As for the doorstep as raised by Socrates, I tell voters just the same as I say here. They don't all agree, but on the whole they appreciate candour."
I'm sure Mrs Duffy would have appreciated Gordon being candid.
As Jonny Jimmy's posts have pointed out, a generalised solution involving acceptance of drowning simply isn't going to work - quite apart from refugee policy, it breaches a fundamental law of seafaring: if you can help someone not to drown, you must do so. Returning them to their point of origin is dodgy since in some cases you will directly sending them to a different king of death - sure, many will be men, but do we really send a Yazidi man back to ISIL territory? And do we send everyone back without trying to distinguish rape victims from would-be plumbers?
A "safe haven" in some peaceful North African location funded by the EU is possible, but unless we deal reasonably with the people in it, then like the refugee camps on the Syrian border it will just grow and grow as people desperate to escape from ISIL and other threats see it as the lesser evil.
What's needed in the long term is a safe haven plus a managed migration policy, using the existing law all over Europe to accept genuine refugees and return people without a plausible case for fear. In the meantime we should rescue drowning people and stop bloody arguing about it. And yes, IF we've accepted a refugee and they need housing urgently, they should get priority over less urgent cases.
As for the doorstep as raised by Socrates, I tell voters just the same as I say here. They don't all agree, but on the whole they appreciate candour, and it gives greater credibility on issues where they do agree. A non-trivial part of the Kipper phenomenon is people fed up with politicians evading questions.
The fundamental law of seafaring is that you rescue people in your vicinity who need rescuing; not that you travel several thousand miles on the off chance that someone in the future might want rescuing there or thereabouts.
Thought experiment: it would be cheaper and more effective to supply the traffickers, for free, with properly equipped and seaworthy boats than to hang about in warships waiting for their present craft to sink. Should we do that?
The AM Telegraph email points to informal discussions going on between the Tory party and the DUP in NI,who have 8 seats currently but hope for more.Accepting the only game in town for the L/Ds is another coalition with the the Tories, so their seats can be added to the Tory total,it could be these DUPpers who get the Cameron over the 326 finishing line. How ironic that the Tory party could be reliant upon Ulster Votes For English laws yet again.
"there is a body of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this. "
You have defined accurately why a policyless Labour Party are still ahead of a relatively economically successful Tory party. There is something so transparently bestial about Tories and their sidekicks in UKIP that nothing they achieve can stop them being vote repellant to large swathes of human beings who do what they can to stop them
Labour have a real chance to be the decent party over this issue. Cement in Red Liberals, mop up some Greens.
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 is 'we must spare no expense to help every last refugee' and 10 is 'use their boats for target practice' - what score do we think is about right for the views of the following? :
1. Dave 2. Ed 3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion 4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
As Jonny Jimmy's posts have pointed out, a generalised solution involving acceptance of drowning simply isn't going to work - quite apart from refugee policy, it breaches a fundamental law of seafaring: if you can help someone not to drown, you must do so. Returning them to their point of origin is dodgy since in some cases you will directly sending them to a different king of death - sure, many will be men, but do we really send a Yazidi man back to ISIL territory? And do we send everyone back without trying to distinguish rape victims from would-be plumbers?
A "safe haven" in some peaceful North African location funded by the EU is possible, but unless we deal reasonably with the people in it, then like the refugee camps on the Syrian border it will just grow and grow as people desperate to escape from ISIL and other threats see it as the lesser evil.
What's needed in the long term is a safe haven plus a managed migration pollicy, using the existing law all over Europe to accept genuine refugees and return people without a plausible case for fear. In the meantime we should rescue drowning people and stop bloody arguing about it. And yes, IF we've accepted a refugee and they need housing urgently, they should get priority over less urgent cases.
As for the doorstep as raised by Socrates, I tell voters just the same as I say here. They don't all agree, but on the whole they appreciate candour, and it gives greater credibility on issues where they do agree. A non-trivial part of the Kipper phenomenon is people fed up with politicians evading questions.
At last some humans on PB. I do hope the majority views on here are not representative
The Conservatives remain becalmed at 30-32% which was their flat line in the Blair years. It now seems the activists believe UKIP will fall apart and all their voters will run back to the blue team - apart from those who will run back to the Red team of course,
On immigration, I see it up close and personal here in East London from the crowded East Ham tube platform at 7am with construction workers heading into town to the group of Romanians outside the Romanian food shop on the way home.
It's busy, crowded and unrelenting - life in a modern capital city and alcohol is close at hand for those who can't cope.
The migrants work and work hard but the schools are full to bursting, the surgery is overwhelmed and public transport is bulging at the seams. Irrespective of where they come from, London is filling up and it is as I imagine it was in the 20s and 30s with packed houses.
The issue is complex and covers many strands - there's the question of internal EU migration and the question of external migration from Africa and elsewhere. Oddly enough, one solution which would work for both would be to improve/restore the local economy and infrastructure. There was much talk of a new "Marshall Plan" for Eastern Europe after 1989 but few seemed willing or able to put the money in.
I can't blame desperate people for having to do desperate things for what they regard as a chance at a better life - we are remarkably fortunate in that regard never having been refugees in our own country. Ultimately the choice is simple - either build Fortress Britain (or Fortress Europe) or start planning properly for much higher population levels which means housing, schools, transport and all the things that cost serious money.
Seems like a great issue to energise the sandal wearers of the left. Will it lead labour back to 35%? The fact that this is the question tells us how far we've moved in just a few months. It is also very definitely a QTWTAIN!
Labour remain with nothing to say on all the big questions of the day - and apparently it's a good idea that they presage their big crackdown on immigration with a PMQ effort to help bring immigrants from the Mediterranean to first Europe and then - who knows (ask the Mayor of Calais) - onto the UK. I really don't think so.
Ed is making up for lost time. He forgot to mention immigration in his big speech too. Now he can make up for it and say he wants more immigration. He even has prospective MPs who believe such immigrants should get social housing over local people if their "needs" are greater.
Evidence?
Our very own NPXMP came on here and proudly announced that if a migrant family's "needs" were higher than a local family's then they should receive priority in social housing. I am sure he is not alone in the Labour party on this.
I admire his honesty and truly believe this is what he believes. I am not sure it will make it to his election address though.
There is no way for social housing to be allocated that will not turn out, on inspection, to be racist. The only fair solution is to abolish it now. This will lead to white people - particularly the elderly and children - dying of exposure in our parks and on our streets, just as black men are doing in international waters to-day. That's race equality for you.
You could allocate social housing in any sort of way you want. It's just that the political class does not have the courage or will to do so.
Non "racist" ways would include: -strict adherence to waiting lists -UK passport holders only (unless you think only whites have UK passports) -long term residency in UK -based on NI/tax contributions
Note the EU largely allows member states to determine their own social benefit rules.
I see the tired use of the r-word being brought up. It used to shut down any sort of debate. I guess anything that does not fast track non-white economic migrants into social housing is racist in your eyes though.
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
The AM Telegraph email points to informal discussions going on between the Tory party and the DUP in NI,who have 8 seats currently but hope for more.Accepting the only game in town for the L/Ds is another coalition with the the Tories, so their seats can be added to the Tory total,it could be these DUPpers who get the Cameron over the 326 finishing line. How ironic that the Tory party could be reliant upon Ulster Votes For English laws yet again.
No change there then, past governments have always taken into account the northern ireland situation, with SF being absent & the unionists voting in Con favour in general.
So your attempted little troll is about nothing remarkable.
People dismiss UKIP at their peril. A lot of people are disengaged from political parties but angry as hell. To secure their vote Farage needs to do two things - remind them why they are angry, and show that he is credible. He succeeds on both fronts.
The supplemental questions in the recent ComRes were the most positive for UKIP i've seen in some time:
34% agree UKIP offers a realistic alternative political vision for Britain.
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 is 'we must spare no expense to help every last refugee' and 10 is 'use their boats for target practice' - what score do we think is about right for the views of the following? :
1. Dave 2. Ed 3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion 4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
What about the obviously (if I'm being a little mischievous) most important group: 2010 LD Lab switchers?
"there is a body of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this. "
You have defined accurately why a policyless Labour Party are still ahead of a relatively economically successful Tory party. There is something so transparently bestial about Tories and their sidekicks in UKIP that nothing they achieve can stop them being vote repellant to large swathes of human beings who do what they can to stop them
Labour have a real chance to be the decent party over this issue. Cement in Red Liberals, mop up some Greens.
So you have come to a point in your life so cynical that you think in terms of party advantage over something like this? Shame on you. Just listen to yourself
You could allocate social housing in any sort of way you want. It's just that the political class does not have the courage or will to do so.
Non "racist" ways would include: -strict adherence to waiting lists -UK passport holders only (unless you think only whites have UK passports) -long term residency in UK -based on NI/tax contributions
Note the EU largely allows member states to determine their own social benefit rules.
I see the tired use of the r-word being brought up. It used to shut down any sort of debate. I guess anything that does not fast track non-white economic migrants into social housing is racist in your eyes though.
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
What nonsense. There are no special rights or advantages from being white. The people that are privileged are those born into great wealth, whether they are children of Russian oligarchs Arab sheikhs or Chinese tycoons.
It has been a detestable tactic of the left to import huge numbers from failed states, and then point to how badly they are doing to tell the white working class they are unfairly "privileged".
"there is a body of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this. "
You have defined accurately why a policyless Labour Party are still ahead of a relatively economically successful Tory party. There is something so transparently bestial about Tories and their sidekicks in UKIP that nothing they achieve can stop them being vote repellant to large swathes of human beings who do what they can to stop them
Yet, centre-left European governments are no keener on this policy than the British government is.
Seems like a great issue to energise the sandal wearers of the left. Will it lead labour back to 35%? The fact that this is the question tells us how far we've moved in just a few months. It is also very definitely a QTWTAIN!
Labour remain with nothing to say on all the big questions of the day - and apparently it's a good idea that they presage their big crackdown on immigration with a PMQ effort to help bring immigrants from the Mediterranean to first Europe and then - who knows (ask the Mayor of Calais) - onto the UK. I really don't think so.
Ed is making up for lost time. He forgot to mention immigration in his big speech too. Now he can make up for it and say he wants more immigration. He even has prospective MPs who believe such immigrants should get social housing over local people if their "needs" are greater.
Evidence?
Our very own NPXMP came on here and proudly announced that if a migrant family's "needs" were higher than a local family's then they should receive priority in social housing. I am sure he is not alone in the Labour party on this.
I admire his honesty and truly believe this is what he believes. I am not sure it will make it to his election address though.
There is no way for social housing to be allocated that will not turn out, on inspection, to be racist. The only fair solution is to abolish it now. This will lead to white people - particularly the elderly and children - dying of exposure in our parks and on our streets, just as black men are doing in international waters to-day. That's race equality for you.
You could allocate social housing in any sort of way you want. It's just that the political class does not have the courage or will to do so.
Non "racist" ways would include: -strict adherence to waiting lists -UK passport holders only (unless you think only whites have UK passports) -long term residency in UK -based on NI/tax contributions
Note the EU largely allows member states to determine their own social benefit rules.
I see the tired use of the r-word being brought up. It used to shut down any sort of debate. I guess anything that does not fast track non-white economic migrants into social housing is racist in your eyes though.
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
If desperate people from Africa are dying en route to illegal entry to Europe they should be saved and taken back to their point of departure
Letting a few die to discourage others sounds terribly Inhumane to me.
Sounds like yet another case of the Tories trying to be tough on immigration to ape Ukip , but overstepping the mark because they don't get it, or really mean it. It is the legal immigration of migrant workers from the eu that is the real problem
Ultimately the choice is simple - either build Fortress Britain (or Fortress Europe) or start planning properly for much higher population levels which means housing, schools, transport and all the things that cost serious money.
With open door immigration planning is not possible, because you have no control over numbers.
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 is 'we must spare no expense to help every last refugee' and 10 is 'use their boats for target practice' - what score do we think is about right for the views of the following? :
1. Dave 2. Ed 3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion 4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
What about the obviously (if I'm being a little mischievous) most important group: 2010 LD Lab switchers?
I expect they're somewhat lower than the other 4s
another post poisoned by the obsessive political game. This is why people are put of politicians its because everything is reduced to a game to score points from any issue ,to 'position' yourselves on everything to win a certain section of votes -Its pathetic and morally crap
While people already on the register will not be removed until after the 2015 election, it WILL impact these elections as new entrants or people who move house between constituencies will not be able to go on the register
By all accounts 11% of people move home every year in the UK. They will disproportionately be the young and poor who live in rented accomodation, with the new rules in place since June 2014 this will disproportionally hit the Labour vote.
And for conspiracy theorists, given that those wanting to rig elections don't tend to plan years in advance, will this mean that postal votes won't be so important in er..certain places I could mention?
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 is 'we must spare no expense to help every last refugee' and 10 is 'use their boats for target practice' - what score do we think is about right for the views of the following? :
1. Dave 2. Ed 3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion 4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
What about the obviously (if I'm being a little mischievous) most important group: 2010 LD Lab switchers?
I expect they're somewhat lower than the other 4s
another post poisoned by the obsessive political game. This is why people are put of politicians its because everything is reduced to a game to score points from any issue ,to 'position' yourselves on everything to win a certain section of votes -Its pathetic and morally crap
Have you read my earlier posts?
Having and expressing a view on how this will play with different sections of the electorate isn't a sign of moral degeneracy; it's just what happens here.
Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.
This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.
Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?
The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.
My guess is that wanting to save desperate people from drowning is a trait that goes well beyond the left. I could be wrong though. Clearly you have a problem with it.
When the guardianistas et al show the same outrage over the child abuse issues in Rotherham/Manchester/Rochdale, etc as over this issue maybe you will have a point and can move beyond snide point scoring.
Clearly the Tory tribe is struggling to defend this appalling decision.
Go back to the days after the publication of Rotherham report and you'll see lots of outrage over the blind eye turned towards the rape of girls by Pakistani men because of Political Correctness.
Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
I have to say I am struggling to see how saving drowning people is a party political matter, but if the Tories wish to make it one then that is a choice they have made. It strikes me as being as immoral to let someone die when you can save them as it is to ignore child abuse on any grounds. But then I am a leftie and so morally inferior.
Can the Guardianistas give us a full list of the oceans which we are supposed to patrol looking for people being smuggled in dangerous boats, preferably in priority order?
The AM Telegraph email points to informal discussions going on between the Tory party and the DUP in NI,who have 8 seats currently but hope for more.Accepting the only game in town for the L/Ds is another coalition with the the Tories, so their seats can be added to the Tory total,it could be these DUPpers who get the Cameron over the 326 finishing line. How ironic that the Tory party could be reliant upon Ulster Votes For English laws yet again.
If a Con government is in a position to push through EV4EL, it will. That will bar NI MPs as well as Scottish or Welsh, where the question concerned is devolved to their assembly / parliament.
Can the Guardianistas give us a full list of the oceans which we are supposed to patrol looking for people being smuggled in dangerous boats, preferably in priority order?
I am also worried about the increase in great white shark attacks in Australian and South African coastal waters. Why are we doing nothing about that?
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 is 'we must spare no expense to help every last refugee' and 10 is 'use their boats for target practice' - what score do we think is about right for the views of the following? :
1. Dave 2. Ed 3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion 4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
What about the obviously (if I'm being a little mischievous) most important group: 2010 LD Lab switchers?
I expect they're somewhat lower than the other 4s
another post poisoned by the obsessive political game. This is why people are put of politicians its because everything is reduced to a game to score points from any issue ,to 'position' yourselves on everything to win a certain section of votes -Its pathetic and morally crap
Have you read my earlier posts?
Having and expressing a view on how this will play with different sections of the electorate isn't a sign of moral degeneracy; it's just what happens here.
Exactly , it happens here because its farly representative of how politicians think in the modern world. Everything has to be done to get votes ,every position is taken to get some 'switchers' - Maybe a decent period of a month perhaps and you could start to talk about how many votes you will get from having your view .The fact that you talk about it at the same time as arguing the case you do shows you care far more about lib dem 'switchers' than any immigrant on the seas. Its pathetic to most people to talk about votes at a time like this
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
I don't think you will find that the good people of places like Jaywick, near Clacton, will agree that "white skins" grant "an unmerited privilege"
Nor will people in council estates across the north.
Thats why people banging on about the R word all the time makes them rather cross.
And they are voting UKIP in industrial quantities.
The Conservatives remain becalmed at 30-32% which was their flat line in the Blair years. It now seems the activists believe UKIP will fall apart and all their voters will run back to the blue team - apart from those who will run back to the Red team of course,
On immigration, I see it up close and personal here in East London from the crowded East Ham tube platform at 7am with construction workers heading into town to the group of Romanians outside the Romanian food shop on the way home.
It's busy, crowded and unrelenting - life in a modern capital city and alcohol is close at hand for those who can't cope.
The migrants work and work hard but the schools are full to bursting, the surgery is overwhelmed and public transport is bulging at the seams. Irrespective of where they come from, London is filling up and it is as I imagine it was in the 20s and 30s with packed houses.
The issue is complex and covers many strands - there's the question of internal EU migration and the question of external migration from Africa and elsewhere. Oddly enough, one solution which would work for both would be to improve/restore the local economy and infrastructure. There was much talk of a new "Marshall Plan" for Eastern Europe after 1989 but few seemed willing or able to put the money in.
I can't blame desperate people for having to do desperate things for what they regard as a chance at a better life - we are remarkably fortunate in that regard never having been refugees in our own country. Ultimately the choice is simple - either build Fortress Britain (or Fortress Europe) or start planning properly for much higher population levels which means housing, schools, transport and all the things that cost serious money.
Don't worry, as Stratford is gentrified and the prices go through the roof, hospitals are being closed in havering and the housing built is to be used for newham overspill... It's a big issue here and Ukip will clean up unless something is done.
Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.
This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.
Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?
The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.
My guess is that wanting to save desperate people from drowning is a trait that goes well beyond the left. I could be wrong though. Clearly you have a problem with it.
When the guardianistas et al show the same outrage over the child abuse issues in Rotherham/Manchester/Rochdale, etc as over this issue maybe you will have a point and can move beyond snide point scoring.
Clearly the Tory tribe is struggling to defend this appalling decision.
Go back to the days after the publication of Rotherham report and you'll see lots of outrage over the blind eye turned towards the rape of girls by Pakistani men because of Political Correctness.
Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
I have to say I am struggling to see how saving drowning people is a party political matter, but if the Tories wish to make it one then that is a choice they have made. It strikes me as being as immoral to let someone die when you can save them as it is to ignore child abuse on any grounds. But then I am a leftie and so morally inferior.
We do have to ask ourselves, SO, why we continue to bother with this Forum.
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
I don't think you will find that the good people of places like Jaywick, near Clacton, will agree that "white skins" grant "an unmerited privilege"
Nor will people in council estates across the north.
Thats why people banging on about the R word all the time makes them rather cross.
And they are voting UKIP in industrial quantities.
I daresay they don't. That doesn't make them right. Good to see someone at last accepting that UKIP is a racist Party.
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
I don't think you will find that the good people of places like Jaywick, near Clacton, will agree that "white skins" grant "an unmerited privilege"
Nor will people in council estates across the north.
Thats why people banging on about the R word all the time makes them rather cross.
And they are voting UKIP in industrial quantities.
I daresay they don't. That doesn't make them right. Good to see someone at last accepting that UKIP is a racist Party.
I'm sorry, but yelling "racist" on unmerited grounds doesn't work any more. You'll have to fall back on actual arguments. It's just a shame the left in this country is so intellectually and morally bankrupt you don't have any good ones.
Oh, and Labour is the one that tolerates racism at high positions.
I have to say I am struggling to see how saving drowning people is a party political matter, but if the Tories wish to make it one then that is a choice they have made.
Er, the thread, written by a Lib Dem, suggested the Labour leader raise it at PMQs, but carry on with your Tories meme...
Ultimately the choice is simple - either build Fortress Britain (or Fortress Europe) or start planning properly for much higher population levels which means housing, schools, transport and all the things that cost serious money.
With open door immigration planning is not possible, because you have no control over numbers.
Well, I would agree that conservatives, socialists and liberals (for their own petty partisan reasons) got 1989 all wrong and we are living with the consequences of Western Europe's gross mishandling of the critical political event of our time.
If all we wanted from eastern Europe was cheap labour and cheap property then we've got exactly what we deserved. To be fair, it's no more than the original EU got from Spain, Portugal and Greece in the 70s. Back then, West Germany got its "gastarbeiter" from Turkey and Yugoslavia - it's an interesting topic to read about. In the end, even offering generous repatriation grants achieved nothing because there was no reason for the migrants to go home.
Even if we left the EU, what would happen to the migrants already here - forcible deportation or do we only keep on the successful ones like the French workers in the City or the Romanian builder who has his own home conversion business ?
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 is 'we must spare no expense to help every last refugee' and 10 is 'use their boats for target practice' - what score do we think is about right for the views of the following? :
1. Dave 2. Ed 3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion 4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
What about the obviously (if I'm being a little mischievous) most important group: 2010 LD Lab switchers?
I expect they're somewhat lower than the other 4s
another post poisoned by the obsessive political game. This is why people are put of politicians its because everything is reduced to a game to score points from any issue ,to 'position' yourselves on everything to win a certain section of votes -Its pathetic and morally crap
Have you read my earlier posts?
Having and expressing a view on how this will play with different sections of the electorate isn't a sign of moral degeneracy; it's just what happens here.
Exactly , it happens here because its farly representative of how politicians think in the modern world. Everything has to be done to get votes ,every position is taken to get some 'switchers' - Maybe a decent period of a month perhaps and you could start to talk about how many votes you will get from having your view .The fact that you talk about it at the same time as arguing the case you do shows you care far more about lib dem 'switchers' than any immigrant on the seas. Its pathetic to most people to talk about votes at a time like this
This is Political Betting. Psephology and its betting implications are the intended focus.
And what the hell do you mean "at a time like this"?
Have I accidentally stumbled into a memorial service for drowned refugees?
This is a live political issue and could well be brought up in PMQs today. Should we really ignore it?
Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med.
This is precisely the sort of of thing that should play well with his side and the key swing voting group of LD to LAB switchers. He needs to exploit it well.
Are you really suggesting that Labour should trumpet the line they would literally send out search parties for immigrants is going to play well in today's political climate?
The left our so cocooned in their little bubble they might actually think this plays well outside their little clique. It might appeal to the Grauniad set though.
My guess is that wanting to save desperate people from drowning is a trait that goes well beyond the left. I could be wrong though. Clearly you have a problem with it.
When the guardianistas et al show the same outrage over the child abuse issues in Rotherham/Manchester/Rochdale, etc as over this issue maybe you will have a point and can move beyond snide point scoring.
Clearly the Tory tribe is struggling to defend this appalling decision.
Go back to the days after the publication of Rotherham report and you'll see lots of outrage over the blind eye turned towards the rape of girls by Pakistani men because of Political Correctness.
Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
I have to say I am struggling to see how saving drowning people is a party political matter, but if the Tories wish to make it one then that is a choice they have made. It strikes me as being as immoral to let someone die when you can save them as it is to ignore child abuse on any grounds. But then I am a leftie and so morally inferior.
We do have to ask ourselves, SO, why we continue to bother with this Forum.
Right suddenly the tories want to drown people eh? Again I suggest prejudice is colouring your posts but lets examine the FACTS Can somebody without a political axe to grind state what the Tories official position is on this ? What the EU (Labour and the lib dems of course support the EU as an institution)'s actual position is on this? How does Labour's official policy differ from the above? If it does or they have one? If it does differ how do they reconcile this with being in the EU and having to go along with their policy?
Once these have been stated , hopefully a sensible debate can happen without this pathetic emotionally vote seeking crap that has poisoned the issue on here today
The AM Telegraph email points to informal discussions going on between the Tory party and the DUP in NI,who have 8 seats currently but hope for more.Accepting the only game in town for the L/Ds is another coalition with the the Tories, so their seats can be added to the Tory total,it could be these DUPpers who get the Cameron over the 326 finishing line. How ironic that the Tory party could be reliant upon Ulster Votes For English laws yet again.
The Tories had a majority in England in 2010. It is the UK as a whole where they don't have a majority.
"The Admiralty, perhaps concerned to divert attention from its own lack of preparation for the disastrous venture, charged Byng for breaching the Articles of War by failing to do all he could to fulfill his orders and support the garrison. Byng was court-martialled, found guilty and sentenced to death. Byng was executed on 14 March 1757 aboard HMS Monarch in Portsmouth harbour.
Byng's execution is referred to in Voltaire's novel Candide with the line Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres – "In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."[3]"
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
I don't think you will find that the good people of places like Jaywick, near Clacton, will agree that "white skins" grant "an unmerited privilege"
Nor will people in council estates across the north.
Thats why people banging on about the R word all the time makes them rather cross.
And they are voting UKIP in industrial quantities.
I daresay they don't. That doesn't make them right. Good to see someone at last accepting that UKIP is a racist Party.
I'm sorry, but yelling "racist" on unmerited grounds doesn't work any more. You'll have to fall back on actual arguments. It's just a shame the left in this country is so intellectually and morally bankrupt you don't have any good ones.
Oh, and Labour is the one that tolerates racism at high positions.
I am not a Labour supporter (let my Party card lapse 25 years ago) so that just washes over me. As to "the left" being "intellectually and morally bankrupt" - well, welcome to the yellers' club!
If I wrote an 1800-word essay in explication of my position, would you bother to read it?
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 is 'we must spare no expense to help every last refugee' and 10 is 'use their boats for target practice' - what score do we think is about right for the views of the following? :
1. Dave 2. Ed 3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion 4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
What about the obviously (if I'm being a little mischievous) most important group: 2010 LD Lab switchers?
I expect they're somewhat lower than the other 4s
another post poisoned by the obsessive political game. This is why people are put of politicians its because everything is reduced to a game to score points from any issue ,to 'position' yourselves on everything to win a certain section of votes -Its pathetic and morally crap
Have you read my earlier posts?
Having and expressing a view on how this will play with different sections of the electorate isn't a sign of moral degeneracy; it's just what happens here.
Exactly , it happens here because its farly representative of how politicians think in the modern world. Everything has to be done to get votes ,every position is taken to get some 'switchers' - Maybe a decent period of a month perhaps and you could start to talk about how many votes you will get from having your view .The fact that you talk about it at the same time as arguing the case you do shows you care far more about lib dem 'switchers' than any immigrant on the seas. Its pathetic to most people to talk about votes at a time like this
This is Political Betting. Psephology and its betting implications are the intended focus.
And what the hell do you mean "at a time like this"?
Have I accidentally stumbled into a memorial service for drowned refugees?
This is a live political issue and could well be brought up in PMQs today. Should we really ignore it?
well I would suggest that if you really want PB to be just about discussing how policies will attract votes then I would appreciate you leaving out all the evil tory emotional crap as talking about cold vote shares leaves you no more morally superior to anyone else on here
and if it is brought up in PMQ's by for example Ed Miliband ,one hopes he brings it up to further a conviction and not because he thinks it will serve a political advantage
I have to say I am struggling to see how saving drowning people is a party political matter, but if the Tories wish to make it one then that is a choice they have made.
Er, the thread, written by a Lib Dem, suggested the Labour leader raise it at PMQs, but carry on with your Tories meme...
As I said in my initial post on this subject, I very much doubt that this is a left/right issue. However, some Tories on here wish to make it one. My guess is that it probably would not be a good idea for the Tory leadership to follow their lead. But if they wish to, so be it.
some Tories on here wish to make it one. My guess is that it probably would not be a good idea for the Tory leadership to follow their lead. But if they wish to, so be it.
And again, the thread is based on the premise of Labour leadership making it so. Those damned Tories...
We could save millions of African children every year from premature death, just by sticking 3p on the income tax. 3 measly p. No ifs or buts. Do you want those children to die? Would you starve to death if your income tax went up by 3p? YES OR NO?
We do search and rescue in our own exceptionally extensive and dangerous coastal waters. It's absolutely great if other countries do it in theirs.
I can see you're a part of the "oh it's all too difficult" brigade and your solution is to exploit your own good fortune of living in a first world country by ignoring the immediate peril of thousands of your fellow human beings. Deluding yourself that somehow the complexity of it all mitigates your own moral failing.
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
I don't think you will find that the good people of places like Jaywick, near Clacton, will agree that "white skins" grant "an unmerited privilege"
Nor will people in council estates across the north.
Thats why people banging on about the R word all the time makes them rather cross.
And they are voting UKIP in industrial quantities.
I daresay they don't. That doesn't make them right. Good to see someone at last accepting that UKIP is a racist Party.
Oh, so people and parties who defend and support the victims of racism are themselves racist. Glad we have got that straight.
well I would suggest that if you really want PB to be just about discussing how policies will attract votes then I would appreciate you leaving out all the evil tory emotional crap as talking about cold vote shares leaves you no more morally superior to anyone else on here
I'm an evil Tory.
I asked the sort of question that Dave might get faced with today. I didn't answer it. The only opinion I've expressed on the matter is that 2010LdLabbers might be more likely to want to help drowning refugees more than the average man on the street.
We could save millions of African children every year from premature death, just by sticking 3p on the income tax. 3 measly p. No ifs or buts. Do you want those children to die? Would you starve to death if your income tax went up by 3p? YES OR NO?
We do search and rescue in our own exceptionally extensive and dangerous coastal waters. It's absolutely great if other countries do it in theirs.
I can see you're a part of the "oh it's all too difficult" brigade and your solution is to exploit your own good fortune of living in a first world country by ignoring the immediate peril of thousands of your fellow human beings. Deluding yourself that somehow the complexity of it all mitigates your own moral failing.
some Tories on here wish to make it one. My guess is that it probably would not be a good idea for the Tory leadership to follow their lead. But if they wish to, so be it.
And again, the thread is based on the premise of Labour leadership making it so. Those damned Tories...
The logical extension of the Guardian view on refugees is that as a rich country we should lay on free ferry boats from Tripoli to Southampton - as we don't trust the safety record of those immigrant boats.
"there is a body of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this. "
You have defined accurately why a policyless Labour Party are still ahead of a relatively economically successful Tory party. There is something so transparently bestial about Tories and their sidekicks in UKIP that nothing they achieve can stop them being vote repellant to large swathes of human beings who do what they can to stop them
Yet, centre-left European governments are no keener on this policy than the British government is.
Pointless trying to contest it, Sean. The narrative is simply too convenient and easy for those on the left to use to confirm their fundamental (and barely hidden) prejudice that Tories are sub-human and morally deficient. It's like crack cocaine.
I doubt there is a single person on this forum who actively wants migrants to drown and die at sea. I certainly don't.
some Tories on here wish to make it one. My guess is that it probably would not be a good idea for the Tory leadership to follow their lead. But if they wish to, so be it.
And again, the thread is based on the premise of Labour leadership making it so. Those damned Tories...
And my posts are based on the fact that several posters on here believe it is a good idea to use the issue as a weapon with which to attack lefties. I disagree with them.
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 is 'we must spare no expense to help every last refugee' and 10 is 'use their boats for target practice' - what score do we think is about right for the views of the following? :
1. Dave 2. Ed 3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion 4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
What about the obviously (if I'm being a little mischievous) most important group: 2010 LD Lab switchers?
I expect they're somewhat lower than the other 4s
another post poisoned by the obsessive political game. This is why people are put of politicians its because everything is reduced to a game to score points from any issue ,to 'position' yourselves on everything to win a certain section of votes -Its pathetic and morally crap
You are aware that the basic purpose of the site is to discuss political betting, one of the most fundamental aspects of which is how the electorate - or subgroups thereof - will respond to any topical (or likely-to-become-topical) issue?
I have to say I am struggling to see how saving drowning people is a party political matter, but if the Tories wish to make it one then that is a choice they have made.
Er, the thread, written by a Lib Dem, suggested the Labour leader raise it at PMQs, but carry on with your Tories meme...
It's as if OGH is desperately trying to help a floundering Miliband by dropping hints...
You could allocate social housing in any sort of way you want. It's just that the political class does not have the courage or will to do so.
Non "racist" ways would include: -strict adherence to waiting lists -UK passport holders only (unless you think only whites have UK passports) -long term residency in UK -based on NI/tax contributions
Note the EU largely allows member states to determine their own social benefit rules.
I see the tired use of the r-word being brought up. It used to shut down any sort of debate. I guess anything that does not fast track non-white economic migrants into social housing is racist in your eyes though.
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
What nonsense. There are no special rights or advantages from being white.
I think those advantages are diminishing over time as migrant communities settle and integrate, but given it takes laws to stop people caving in to their own witless prejudice, I have to say your post is utterly naive.
We could save millions of African children every year from premature death, just by sticking 3p on the income tax. 3 measly p. No ifs or buts. Do you want those children to die? Would you starve to death if your income tax went up by 3p? YES OR NO?
We do search and rescue in our own exceptionally extensive and dangerous coastal waters. It's absolutely great if other countries do it in theirs.
I can see you're a part of the "oh it's all too difficult" brigade and your solution is to exploit your own good fortune of living in a first world country by ignoring the immediate peril of thousands of your fellow human beings. Deluding yourself that somehow the complexity of it all mitigates your own moral failing.
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 is 'we must spare no expense to help every last refugee' and 10 is 'use their boats for target practice' - what score do we think is about right for the views of the following? :
1. Dave 2. Ed 3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion 4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
What about the obviously (if I'm being a little mischievous) most important group: 2010 LD Lab switchers?
I expect they're somewhat lower than the other 4s
another post poisoned by the obsessive political game. This is why people are put of politicians its because everything is reduced to a game to score points from any issue ,to 'position' yourselves on everything to win a certain section of votes -Its pathetic and morally crap
You are aware that the basic purpose of the site is to discuss political betting, one of the most fundamental aspects of which is how the electorate - or subgroups thereof - will respond to any topical (or likely-to-become-topical) issue?
Yes I accept that although still find it distasteful over a mater like this .However if you want to do this ,my point is that you cannot at the same time pretend you are morally superior than anyone else. You either have to argue the case, the politics or spout emotion. I am not sure you should do more than one ,otherwise you look false and too cynical
On a matter like this I would rather argue the case rather than politics and for that you need some facts (as I asked for earlier but nobody can supply it seems and yet a lot of people can still conclude that tories like drowning people etc)
'Clearly the Tory tribe is struggling to defend this appalling decision.'
The UK taxpayer should be contributing towards the costs of Italy's search and rescue for illegal immigrants in the Med,is the Italian taxpayer contributing towards the the costs of the UK's operation in Calais?
Mr. Royale, it'll be interesting to see the public's response. It's not the same issue, but it was delightful to watch Angela Eagle crash and burn on Question Time when she attempted to take something out of context and manufacture outrage galore to show how evil the Tories are (especially Tory lords who used to advise Labour).
Don't worry, as Stratford is gentrified and the prices go through the roof, hospitals are being closed in havering and the housing built is to be used for newham overspill... It's a big issue here and Ukip will clean up unless something is done.
Just as UKIP "cleaned up" with 10% in the Beckton by-election.
On the migrants in boats issue, I'm sure no one is suggesting people in genuine need won't be rescued but there is a valid point that by the time they are at sea it's too late. The EU needs to get into Libya and other parts of North Africa and start tackling the problem nearer the source. That doesn't just mean camps but it also means the economic reconstruction of Libya which was the direct result of the civil war.
We cannot evade responsibility for our actions in that conflict and, as with Afghanistan and Iraq, our responsibility doesn't end with the fall of the dictator - indeed, that's where it starts. Post-1989 Eastern Europe was the same - once the cheering for the fall of the Communists had stopped, the hard truth was these countries needed huge long-term investment and infrastructural programmes to rebalance after four decades of Marxist mismanagement.
Unfortunately, all we saw was cheap labour for our building sites and coffee shops and the chance to buy some nice Black Sea beachfront property.
Hmm, I'm not so sure - If African migrants drowning at sea are the issue, then I would suggest a policy which discourages them from attempting such a crossing in the first place, is better than one which only arises, once they’ve set sail.
Italy’s “Mare Nostrum” policy has received both praise and criticism with many claiming it is little more than “ferrying in immigrants rather than dissuading them from coming” – The same criticism has been levied at the planned EU border agency Frontex's "Triton" mission, with claims that the unintended “pull factor” would encouraging more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing and thereby leading to more tragic and unnecessary death.
The UK’s position I believe is to focus on "countries of origin and transit" and tackle those involved in this criminal human trafficking. – In my opinion, a policy which seeks to prevent or minimise those attempting to reach Europe via this dangerous and often tragic way in conjunction with an RNLI type rescue service , strikes me as eminently more sensible than what is being proposed thus far.
Comments
Our very own NPXMP came on here and proudly announced that if a migrant family's "needs" were higher than a local family's then they should receive priority in social housing. I am sure he is not alone in the Labour party on this.
I admire his honesty and truly believe this is what he believes. I am not sure it will make it to his election address though.
LD=Lost deposits
Clearly the Tory tribe is struggling to defend this appalling decision.
Go back to the days after the publication of Rotherham report and you'll see lots of outrage over the blind eye turned towards the rape of girls by Pakistani men because of Political Correctness.
Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
The increase in the Con share from 1997 to 2010 was about 5.4%.
The LD-Lab switchers in the YouGov poll quoted were 30% of the 2010 LD vote i.e. 6.9% BUT the LD-Con switchers were given as 12% of the 2010 LD vote i.e. 2.8%, so the net effect of the 2010 LD defectors is a move of 4.1% to Labour (or a net swing of just over 2% from Con to Lab).
It is quite telling isn't it?
Will REd really talk about this issue when he has ignored the other?
Must admit, though, that the local car-wash seems to have only EU immigrants. However, before they arrived there wasn’t a local car-wash firm.
Admire the history though and if they are a true Whig party (as opposed to another 'nobody understands us' sort of rabble like Russell Brand) I might even try to vote for them!!
The type of people who for years have been voting tactically in marginals to keep obnoxious Tories out - the kind of people who think Tory theories about what drives humans to do stuff are utterly bonkers.
The type of people who keep the Tory poll share languishing only just above 30% even when Labour are seemingly shedding votes.
That's quite a big horde (not hoard).
These boats are so dangerous that the only way of making them vaguely safe is to escort each and every one of them. So what we are talking about is an official, quasi-legal and EU sponsored mode of entry from Africa to the EU. That's what is meant by the claim the Italian navy "rescued" 150 000 (!) last year - it didn't winch that number of bodies out of the water. If that's what you want, say so.
Have a look at the business model of the people who run these boats. They are probably the most evil business grouping in the world, up there with the drug barons. So evil they would probably vote UKIP. You want to give their industry a present of several billion quid. Well done.
But politically attacking on this at pmqs is certainly they way to go for ed. He will boost his popularity immeasurably with all demographics and consolidate his recovery in the polls. I hope he has the courage to go for it.
Margin of error poll, no reason to be particularly fussed either way, as yet.
Mr. Away, I shall be greatly disappointed if they do not wear Regency period wigs and very smart suits.
"Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
I'm happy to defend both and criticise both.
A few Labour MPs (particularly Northern ones) and others (you, included) were scathing about their own party's response, but some left-leaners were falling over themselves to shut down discussion.
There are Tories who see everything in terms of political advantage too.
There's a humanitarian crisis. There's also a lot of economic migration which disproportionately affects certain sections of the UK community. Socrates is right in highlighting the different perceptions.
I'm sure Guardian writers would wish things were different. but when I see them offering to share their homes with migrants or giving chunks of their salaries to aid charities, I'll take them seriously.
Great for the well-off though. That's why they're so determined to smear anyone that threatens their little gambit with the "racist" tag. An honest and open debate would mess it all up.
These boats are so dangerous that the only way of making them vaguely safe is to escort each and every one of them. So what we are talking about is an official, quasi-legal and EU sponsored mode of entry from Africa to the EU. That's what is meant by the claim the Italian navy "rescued" 150 000 (!) last year - it didn't winch that number of bodies out of the water. If that's what you want, say so.
Have a look at the business model of the people who run these boats. They are probably the most evil business grouping in the world, up there with the drug barons. So evil they would probably vote UKIP. You want to give their industry a present of several billion quid. Well done.
But politically attacking on this at pmqs is certainly they way to go for ed. He will boost his popularity immeasurably with all demographics and consolidate his recovery in the polls. I hope he has the courage to go for it.
If people are in the water they need rescuing.
No ifs or buts or waffling about what traffickers might or might not be doing.
I hope Ed goes for it too. He needs to shore up his base right now, and this is part of the way to do it. All those anti-Tory tactical votes to hoover up.
Go back to the days after the publication of Rotherham report and you'll see lots of outrage over the blind eye turned towards the rape of girls by Pakistani men because of Political Correctness.
Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
As far as I can tell, the decision to end Mare Nostrum has been taken by all governments concerned.
It was concluded unanimously that African-route immigration had to be discouraged as it was becoming beyond the resources of those countries to cope with it.
They concluded also that most were economic migrants who believe the streets of Europe and especially London are 'paved with gold.' Most ex-Africa migration is caused by hyped expectations of economic growth by local politicians who want to get their hands on power and the personal economic benefits that brings. Corruption is rife in many of those countries and so essential infrastructure money is diverted into private accounts.
The meeting also concluded that Europe needed a common economic approach to immigrants which would mean no benefits for the first five years.
With Farage - who is little more than a showman - in charge, then yes. Someone like Carswell may be able to mould UKIP into something more sustainable. But Farage needs to go first.
And a lack of moral backbone to oppose it makes it worse.
No ifs or buts or waffling about what traffickers might or might not be doing.
I hope Ed goes for it too. He needs to shore up his base right now, and this is part of the way to do it. All those anti-Tory tactical votes to hoover up.
"No ifs or buts" - are you Hugh?
We could save millions of African children every year from premature death, just by sticking 3p on the income tax. 3 measly p. No ifs or buts. Do you want those children to die? Would you starve to death if your income tax went up by 3p? YES OR NO?
We do search and rescue in our own exceptionally extensive and dangerous coastal waters. It's absolutely great if other countries do it in theirs.
"there is a body of public opinion in Britain - largely outside the selfish Tory and UKIP voting hoard - where common humanity and decency still hold sway who are rightly disgusted at this. "
You have defined accurately why a policyless Labour Party are still ahead of a relatively economically successful Tory party. There is something so transparently bestial about Tories and their sidekicks in UKIP that nothing they achieve can stop them being vote repellant to large swathes of human beings who do what they can to stop them
I've been ridiculed in the past for saying that this would happen. Hopefully it now has.
You could allocate social housing in any sort of way you want. It's just that the political class does not have the courage or will to do so.
Non "racist" ways would include:
-strict adherence to waiting lists
-UK passport holders only (unless you think only whites have UK passports)
-long term residency in UK
-based on NI/tax contributions
Note the EU largely allows member states to determine their own social benefit rules.
I see the tired use of the r-word being brought up. It used to shut down any sort of debate. I guess anything that does not fast track non-white economic migrants into social housing is racist in your eyes though.
A "safe haven" in some peaceful North African location funded by the EU is possible, but unless we deal reasonably with the people in it, then like the refugee camps on the Syrian border it will just grow and grow as people desperate to escape from ISIL and other threats see it as the lesser evil.
What's needed in the long term is a safe haven plus a managed migration pollicy, using the existing law all over Europe to accept genuine refugees and return people without a plausible case for fear. In the meantime we should rescue drowning people and stop bloody arguing about it. And yes, IF we've accepted a refugee and they need housing urgently, they should get priority over less urgent cases.
As for the doorstep as raised by Socrates, I tell voters just the same as I say here. They don't all agree, but on the whole they appreciate candour, and it gives greater credibility on issues where they do agree. A non-trivial part of the Kipper phenomenon is people fed up with politicians evading questions.
But Farage has moved UKIP away from that one issue towards a more nebulous platform. Short term, it is working. Long term, UKIP needs more. Farage isn't the guy to do it, and when it's done there is a good chance the party will lose much of its support. That's where people more interested in policy than populism should take over.
The Polish influx in 2004/5 led to Catholic schools being filled full to bursting. It also meant that non-Catholics were excluded as Catholics are given preference. As Poles are undeniably Catholic (St. John Paul, anyone?), they were preferred over rather more Anglo liberal applicants.
Cue outrage of Guardianistas against "discrimination", in reality meaning "screw the Poles".
"As for the doorstep as raised by Socrates, I tell voters just the same as I say here. They don't all agree, but on the whole they appreciate candour."
I'm sure Mrs Duffy would have appreciated Gordon being candid.
Thought experiment: it would be cheaper and more effective to supply the traffickers, for free, with properly equipped and seaworthy boats than to hang about in warships waiting for their present craft to sink. Should we do that?
How ironic that the Tory party could be reliant upon Ulster Votes For English laws yet again.
1. Dave
2. Ed
3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion
4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
The Conservatives remain becalmed at 30-32% which was their flat line in the Blair years. It now seems the activists believe UKIP will fall apart and all their voters will run back to the blue team - apart from those who will run back to the Red team of course,
On immigration, I see it up close and personal here in East London from the crowded East Ham tube platform at 7am with construction workers heading into town to the group of Romanians outside the Romanian food shop on the way home.
It's busy, crowded and unrelenting - life in a modern capital city and alcohol is close at hand for those who can't cope.
The migrants work and work hard but the schools are full to bursting, the surgery is overwhelmed and public transport is bulging at the seams. Irrespective of where they come from, London is filling up and it is as I imagine it was in the 20s and 30s with packed houses.
The issue is complex and covers many strands - there's the question of internal EU migration and the question of external migration from Africa and elsewhere. Oddly enough, one solution which would work for both would be to improve/restore the local economy and infrastructure. There was much talk of a new "Marshall Plan" for Eastern Europe after 1989 but few seemed willing or able to put the money in.
I can't blame desperate people for having to do desperate things for what they regard as a chance at a better life - we are remarkably fortunate in that regard never having been refugees in our own country. Ultimately the choice is simple - either build Fortress Britain (or Fortress Europe) or start planning properly for much higher population levels which means housing, schools, transport and all the things that cost serious money.
So your attempted little troll is about nothing remarkable.
34% agree UKIP offers a realistic alternative political vision for Britain.
30% agree UKIP are the party of common sense.
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/The_Independent_Political_Poll_28th_October_2014_5632.pdf
I expect they're somewhat lower than the other 4s
Just listen to yourself
It has been a detestable tactic of the left to import huge numbers from failed states, and then point to how badly they are doing to tell the white working class they are unfairly "privileged".
Letting a few die to discourage others sounds terribly Inhumane to me.
Sounds like yet another case of the Tories trying to be tough on immigration to ape Ukip , but overstepping the mark because they don't get it, or really mean it. It is the legal immigration of migrant workers from the eu that is the real problem
Hers an article from Monday on that subject
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/28/How-the-Tories-are-stealing-UKIP-s-lines-and-why-it-isn-t-working
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/nick-boles-we-cant-control-immigration-as-eu-members/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Electoral_Registration
While people already on the register will not be removed until after the 2015 election, it WILL impact these elections as new entrants or people who move house between constituencies will not be able to go on the register
By all accounts 11% of people move home every year in the UK. They will disproportionately be the young and poor who live in rented accomodation, with the new rules in place since June 2014 this will disproportionally hit the Labour vote.
And for conspiracy theorists, given that those wanting to rig elections don't tend to plan years in advance, will this mean that postal votes won't be so important in er..certain places I could mention?
Having and expressing a view on how this will play with different sections of the electorate isn't a sign of moral degeneracy; it's just what happens here.
Go back to the days after the publication of Rotherham report and you'll see lots of outrage over the blind eye turned towards the rape of girls by Pakistani men because of Political Correctness.
Fast forward to today and a similar moral outrage is met by handwringing from Tories and a "look over there!"
I have to say I am struggling to see how saving drowning people is a party political matter, but if the Tories wish to make it one then that is a choice they have made. It strikes me as being as immoral to let someone die when you can save them as it is to ignore child abuse on any grounds. But then I am a leftie and so morally inferior.
Nor will people in council estates across the north.
Thats why people banging on about the R word all the time makes them rather cross.
And they are voting UKIP in industrial quantities.
Not at all. It would be a principled stand and if it means losing some frothers, so be it
We do have to ask ourselves, SO, why we continue to bother with this Forum.
"Ed has shrunk our support to unions, Socialist intellectuals, the Muslim vote. We are now Respect-Lite," Labour peer http://bit.ly/1yGTLkI
Oh, and Labour is the one that tolerates racism at high positions.
If all we wanted from eastern Europe was cheap labour and cheap property then we've got exactly what we deserved. To be fair, it's no more than the original EU got from Spain, Portugal and Greece in the 70s. Back then, West Germany got its "gastarbeiter" from Turkey and Yugoslavia - it's an interesting topic to read about. In the end, even offering generous repatriation grants achieved nothing because there was no reason for the migrants to go home.
Even if we left the EU, what would happen to the migrants already here - forcible deportation or do we only keep on the successful ones like the French workers in the City or the Romanian builder who has his own home conversion business ?
And what the hell do you mean "at a time like this"?
Have I accidentally stumbled into a memorial service for drowned refugees?
This is a live political issue and could well be brought up in PMQs today. Should we really ignore it?
Right suddenly the tories want to drown people eh? Again I suggest prejudice is colouring your posts but lets examine the FACTS
Can somebody without a political axe to grind state what the Tories official position is on this ?
What the EU (Labour and the lib dems of course support the EU as an institution)'s actual position is on this?
How does Labour's official policy differ from the above? If it does or they have one? If it does differ how do they reconcile this with being in the EU and having to go along with their policy?
Once these have been stated , hopefully a sensible debate can happen without this pathetic emotionally vote seeking crap that has poisoned the issue on here today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minorca_(1756)
"The Admiralty, perhaps concerned to divert attention from its own lack of preparation for the disastrous venture, charged Byng for breaching the Articles of War by failing to do all he could to fulfill his orders and support the garrison. Byng was court-martialled, found guilty and sentenced to death. Byng was executed on 14 March 1757 aboard HMS Monarch in Portsmouth harbour.
Byng's execution is referred to in Voltaire's novel Candide with the line Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres – "In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."[3]"
If I wrote an 1800-word essay in explication of my position, would you bother to read it?
and if it is brought up in PMQ's by for example Ed Miliband ,one hopes he brings it up to further a conviction and not because he thinks it will serve a political advantage
I asked the sort of question that Dave might get faced with today. I didn't answer it. The only opinion I've expressed on the matter is that 2010LdLabbers might be more likely to want to help drowning refugees more than the average man on the street.
I have a hole where my heart should be.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/06/south-sudan-food-crisis-children-brunt-man-made-disaster
3p on income tax to avert this. should ed miliband propose this? Why not?
I doubt there is a single person on this forum who actively wants migrants to drown and die at sea. I certainly don't.
On a matter like this I would rather argue the case rather than politics and for that you need some facts (as I asked for earlier but nobody can supply it seems and yet a lot of people can still conclude that tories like drowning people etc)
'Clearly the Tory tribe is struggling to defend this appalling decision.'
The UK taxpayer should be contributing towards the costs of Italy's search and rescue for illegal immigrants in the Med,is the Italian taxpayer contributing towards the the costs of the UK's operation in Calais?
Fantasy eh? That almost counts as your own opinion. Well done.
Noted that you think Mike is wrong. We shall see...
On the migrants in boats issue, I'm sure no one is suggesting people in genuine need won't be rescued but there is a valid point that by the time they are at sea it's too late. The EU needs to get into Libya and other parts of North Africa and start tackling the problem nearer the source. That doesn't just mean camps but it also means the economic reconstruction of Libya which was the direct result of the civil war.
We cannot evade responsibility for our actions in that conflict and, as with Afghanistan and Iraq, our responsibility doesn't end with the fall of the dictator - indeed, that's where it starts. Post-1989 Eastern Europe was the same - once the cheering for the fall of the Communists had stopped, the hard truth was these countries needed huge long-term investment and infrastructural programmes to rebalance after four decades of Marxist mismanagement.
Unfortunately, all we saw was cheap labour for our building sites and coffee shops and the chance to buy some nice Black Sea beachfront property.
Hmm, I'm not so sure - If African migrants drowning at sea are the issue, then I would suggest a policy which discourages them from attempting such a crossing in the first place, is better than one which only arises, once they’ve set sail.
Italy’s “Mare Nostrum” policy has received both praise and criticism with many claiming it is little more than “ferrying in immigrants rather than dissuading them from coming” – The same criticism has been levied at the planned EU border agency Frontex's "Triton" mission, with claims that the unintended “pull factor” would encouraging more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing and thereby leading to more tragic and unnecessary death.
The UK’s position I believe is to focus on "countries of origin and transit" and tackle those involved in this criminal human trafficking. – In my opinion, a policy which seeks to prevent or minimise those attempting to reach Europe via this dangerous and often tragic way in conjunction with an RNLI type rescue service , strikes me as eminently more sensible than what is being proposed thus far.
More evidence of Tory paranoia. That said, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.