The immigration disconnect is fascinating. I have already written about the control element but all politicians say they want to bring it under control and none do, while I would say a large minority if not majority of the country wants it to be reined in. And nothing happens. Or rather, immigration increases.
I'm also sure that many people voted for Brexit thinking finally we're going to sort immigration and here we are. If Nige isn't running then presumably he doesn't think immigration is at the point whereby he needs to get back on the horse to campaign for it to be lowered.
It's all so terribly British. (Note to @Heathener)
I've always regarded the boat arrivals as a look butterfly attempt to distract from the real issue...
James O'Malley @Psythor · 3m Good luck to the broadcasters trying to schedule any election debates as there are 8pm Euro matches on…
June 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, and 30,
And July 1 and 2.
(So I predict there will be a debate on Thursday 27th)
I think debates will be 13th June and 27th on that basis
Note to broadcasters: not everyone cares about The Football.
But a huge number of people do and its June, if the weather is good, people will be out and about, and during Euros / World Cup a lot of people like to go to the pub with outside seating, watch the match. I imagine the viewing figures for any debate will be through the floor.
Tbf, though, the Venn diagram of those who are massively into the football and those who like election debates is somewhat limited.
It's not as if all the Everton and Gunner fans would have been flocking to see a SKS v Sunak boxing match were it not for a scheduled kickabout of the leather ball.
I am saying not just the football, its summer, people go out and about, people go to sit in a pub garden etc. And when these football tournaments are on, it gives another reason to organise meeting up with mates to have a beer outside. It isn't just hardcore football fans. This effect is large enough that England doing well in these tournaments has an impact on GDP figures.
HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???
Boris was pro-immigration, as are many on the right. What makes you think they lost control?
It's funny how it's the Right that get so upset about it, but the real harm is to younger people scrapping it out for rental properties in the cities.
Immigration is great for two things that benefit older people - NHS staffing and house prices. That's why despite all the fuss, it's in Tory long term interests to keep levels as high as possible.
Tbf, I think Sunak has met two of his five pledges (economy growing and inflation on target) its just that the NHS situation is awful- our GP will now only take emergencies and is essentially inaccessible- and immigration has ballooned.
One of those drives voters to Labour and the other to Reform.
He will try and campaign on the economy but it won't be enough.
re post office, I'm not as big a fan of Paula's outfit today as yesterday, but she has come in with a second wind and is calmer than before. You could see her yesterday by the end, when she realised she wasn't going to get any sympathy or quarter from JB that she had to regulate her emotions and compose herself and no one was going to help her do this. Some deep breaths, calming herself down, and onwards. And it seems that she is approaching today with that in mind.
Oh and 22,000 watching vs the odd hundred yesterday.
I'm pretty sure there was an error with the numbers yesterday when it said 125 people watching compared to a few thousand for even the least interesting of witnesses.
Yep must have been an error. 25,000 watching now.
I think Youtube were generally having issues yesterday - all the other streams from the Mirror / Guardian / Sky were also showing 10-15 viewers yesterday but ~5k today.
It'll be interesting to see how many seats the Tories would win in Scotland if there's a 10% swing from SNP to Labour in each seat.
What vote share are you anticipating for the Tories? There comes a point where Labour just come through the middle in most, but as a rough guide on a 17-18 % Tory vote and a 10% swing SNP to Lab then Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Angus and the Glens, Argyll and Bute, East Renfrewshire would be the targets (not predicting this WILL happen)
Tories got 25% in Scotland in 2019. This time I think they'll get around 20%, so their vote holding up better than elsewhere.
HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???
Boris was pro-immigration, as are many on the right. What makes you think they lost control?
It was conscious decision to increase immigration in an attempt at partial amelioration of the economic damage of Brexit. With Covid and the SMO, which the British government has played a foolish bit-part in extending, also putting the boot into the economy they had no choice.
There is no "Lost Control" about it. The Channel fuckers are a very small percentage of arrivals.
When I voted for Brexit I voted for democracy and sovereignty
...and having got them they are so shit I am moving to Spain...
Not definitely. I can see you’re worried and you’ll miss me - so I haven’t yet made a final decision. But I definitely want the option. Also I get to roam around Schengen with my digital nomad visa so I can send you exciting updates about the beauties of free movement. As a tragic Remoaner that should make you happy?
As a third country national you can roam but not automatically settle in the other Schengen states. Your visa will only allow you to live in Spain.
I've no desire to settle in two countries simultaneously. I am a Nomad!
Indeed this is what keeps me from moving to Spain right now. I am getting a lot of travel from the Gazette, and...... I love it. Wandering the world musing philosophically and meeting random people and writing the odd essay about my thoughts and experiences, makes me quite happy, it turns out
I was never a homebody, I am not Homo domesticus
However if I am gonna spend a few years madly travelling now my kids are grown (and while I still can, physically) I need a base, and London is a brilliant base, much better than Spain. So it's London's convenience but hideous taxes and rain versus the awkwardness of Spain but lovely weather and much lower tax
It'll be interesting to see how many seats the Tories would win in Scotland if there's a 10% swing from SNP to Labour in each seat.
What vote share are you anticipating for the Tories? There comes a point where Labour just come through the middle in most, but as a rough guide on a 17-18 % Tory vote and a 10% swing SNP to Lab then Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Angus and the Glens, Argyll and Bute, East Renfrewshire would be the targets (not predicting this WILL happen)
Tories got 25% in Scotland in 2019. This time I think they'll get around 20%, so their vote holding up better than elsewhere.
I think they could match 25%. Their vote is suppressed in Scotland more than Labour's (assuming that age drives voting patterns) and given the inevitable Labour win, many Tories will return home with no need to vote tactically against the SNP.
When I voted for Brexit I voted for democracy and sovereignty
...and having got them they are so shit I am moving to Spain...
Not definitely. I can see you’re worried and you’ll miss me - so I haven’t yet made a final decision. But I definitely want the option. Also I get to roam around Schengen with my digital nomad visa so I can send you exciting updates about the beauties of free movement. As a tragic Remoaner that should make you happy?
As a third country national you can roam but not automatically settle in the other Schengen states. Your visa will only allow you to live in Spain.
I've no desire to settle in two countries simultaneously. I am a Nomad!
Indeed this is what keeps me from moving to Spain right now. I am getting a lot of travel from the Gazette, and...... I love it. Wandering the world musing philosophically and meeting random people and writing the odd essay about my thoughts and experiences, makes me quite happy, it turns out
I was never a homebody, I am not Homo domesticus
However if I am gonna spend a few years madly travelling now my kids are grown (and while I still can, physically) I need a base, and London is a brilliant base, much better than Spain. So it's London's convenience but hideous taxes and rain versus the awkwardness of Spain but lovely weather and much lower tax
Why not Portugal, who although they scraped their overly generous golden visa scheme, the replacement still isn't very hard to meet the criteria for...and in 5 years you get a Portuguese passport. In the meantime, they give you a visa that lets you exist like an EU citizen.
Jacob Rees-Mogg compared Rishi Sunak to Gene Kelly in Singin’ in the Rain as he described the election launch speech as “magnificent”.
The Conservative MP told Times Radio: “I thought it was absolutely magnificent. I thought it was just the best British stoicism, the stiff upper lip. We carry on regardless. The British are drip dry.
Long-term net migration (the number of people immigrating minus the number emigrating) was provisionally estimated to be 685,000 in the year ending (YE) December 2023, compared with our updated estimate of 764,000 for the YE December 2022; while it is too early to say if this is the start of a new downward trend, emigration increased in 2023, while new Home Office data show visa applications have fallen in recent months....
Literally 1% of the population of the UK, arriving in a single year. This is the overwhelming Tory failure and this is why they need to DIE
I recall the heady days when people used to say that our population would now fall due to leaving the EU as nobody would want to come to Brexit Britain.
And the heady days when Brexiteers said time to take in the talent of the world instead of being restricted by the racist EU.
Some folk seem to want to leave Brexit Britain, whether they're indigenes or not is unclear.
'emigration increased in 2023'
Well I’ve just applied for my Spanish digital nomad visa. Whether I ever use it I dunno. But good to have the option - emigration
Thank you for your assistance cutting off that option for those whose jobs require a physical presence in the UK.
You’re welcome. I’ll post one photo a day from my hacienda to keep you cheerful
I might see you there. I am not one of them. But I tend to think about my fellow countrymen and women when making electoral choices - at least sometimes anyway. I'm not pretending I'm a complete saint.
When I voted for Brexit I voted for democracy and sovereignty - but I also hoped we would stay in rhe EEA or something like it, at least for ten years as a minimum pain holding position. I had no problem with freedom of movement. Polish plumbers are quite unlikely to blow me up or establish massive racist grooming gangs etc etc etc
But T May in her infinitely zero wisdom went for Hard Brexit and here we are
Anyway you will now get your Labour govt with a massive majority and they can reverse all this or not, as they please. So you can finally blame someone else, and I’ll be cheering you on from my balcony in Ibiza
As long as you don't stay for longer than 90 days. The South of france and Ibiza seem so much more cosmopolitan than any place in England outside parts of central Londion which is not how it used to be. PS How do you get this visa? Working out ways to screw Brexit is one of the main topics of conversation with people who have homes in France and Italy
Er, Rog, there's this thing called a Digital Nomad Visa. Do try and keep up
Politics will likely be a lot more interesting with Starmer in Downing Street. Almost every day he'll probably be compelled to do things that make him immensely unpopular with many of his own MPs.
Labour might easily be in a pickle over immigration. Will it prevent them forming the next government? Hell no.
But they need to formulate a response and policy to the current immigration situation.
Does he stop Rwanda instantly? Yes, says SKS as he wants to introduce "specialist investigators to tackle small boats" (ie presumably to stop them); yes, say all members of the metropolitan elite in unison. But what do Unison members say.
Will SKS' proposal for a highly trained team of "special investigators" convince people that he wants to do anything about illegal immigration and is not simply going to throw the doors wide open.
That is what he has to convince the red wall. All of us on here might throw our hands up as it's bleedin' obvious, but SKS has to show that he wants to Stop the Boats every bit as much as Rishi. Interested to see what Scott's new avatar will be in this light.
The polling shows that immigration is a huge issue for Tory voters. It is far less of one for Labour voters. If Labour does win the election we are all going to have to get use to a government that is focused on the priorities of very different demographics to the ones that have been setting the agenda for the last few years.
It'll be interesting to see how many seats the Tories would win in Scotland if there's a 10% swing from SNP to Labour in each seat.
What vote share are you anticipating for the Tories? There comes a point where Labour just come through the middle in most, but as a rough guide on a 17-18 % Tory vote and a 10% swing SNP to Lab then Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Angus and the Glens, Argyll and Bute, East Renfrewshire would be the targets (not predicting this WILL happen)
Tories got 25% in Scotland in 2019. This time I think they'll get around 20%, so their vote holding up better than elsewhere.
I think they could match 25%. Their vote is suppressed in Scotland more than Labour's (assuming that age drives voting patterns) and given the inevitable Labour win, many Tories will return home with no need to vote tactically against the SNP.
Mm. Bit odd therefore that Mr Ross advocated tactical voting.
HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???
Boris was pro-immigration, as are many on the right. What makes you think they lost control?
It was conscious decision to increase immigration in an attempt at partial amelioration of the economic damage of Brexit. With Covid and the SMO, which the British government has played a foolish bit-part in extending, also putting the boot into the economy they had no choice.
There is no "Lost Control" about it. The Channel fuckers are a very small percentage of arrivals.
It was also an attempt to plug holes in the health and social care sector, and reduce waiting list, because its much faster to import than domestically train.
It'll be interesting to see how many seats the Tories would win in Scotland if there's a 10% swing from SNP to Labour in each seat.
What vote share are you anticipating for the Tories? There comes a point where Labour just come through the middle in most, but as a rough guide on a 17-18 % Tory vote and a 10% swing SNP to Lab then Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Angus and the Glens, Argyll and Bute, East Renfrewshire would be the targets (not predicting this WILL happen)
Tories got 25% in Scotland in 2019. This time I think they'll get around 20%, so their vote holding up better than elsewhere.
At 20% and other factors the same add Moray, Nairn and Strathspey, Central Ayrshire to targets and Aberdeen South and Kincardine as a three way (again NOT a prediction!)
re post office, I'm not as big a fan of Paula's outfit today as yesterday, but she has come in with a second wind and is calmer than before. You could see her yesterday by the end, when she realised she wasn't going to get any sympathy or quarter from JB that she had to regulate her emotions and compose herself and no one was going to help her do this. Some deep breaths, calming herself down, and onwards. And it seems that she is approaching today with that in mind.
Oh and 22,000 watching vs the odd hundred yesterday.
To be honest, I’ve a little sympathy for her. She’s watched the Inquiry develop, knowing she was going to have to give evidence, and seen her subordinates twisting in the wind. She didn’t, though, do a runner or “fall sick”; she turned up and faced the music. I suspect the grilling she’s getting from Beer isn’t as tough as that which she’s going to get from one of the sub-postmasters representatives. And she must know there’s an outside (at least) chance of a prosecution after this.
Yep agree on all counts and as Beer alluded to yday, there is def a chance of perjury as she was shown to have been told about remote access and then stated to the SC that there was none. Is that perjury lying to parliament?
I mean she seems to be a super decent woman and, apparently, a woman of god. I find it difficult to believe that underneath or once appointed she came over all Pope Innocent III and maliciously pursued the course of action that we have seen but as head, she is responsible and accountable. And she should take her medicine.
Odd concept of decency. I think woman of God is a lot of the problem - blind loyalty to an institution, the more irrational and damaging a belief the greater the virtue in holding it, sub postmasters are sinners because everyone is.
Her answer "I would never have called them subbies" was pure English class based comedy. Mitford and Betjeman level
When I voted for Brexit I voted for democracy and sovereignty
...and having got them they are so shit I am moving to Spain...
Not definitely. I can see you’re worried and you’ll miss me - so I haven’t yet made a final decision. But I definitely want the option. Also I get to roam around Schengen with my digital nomad visa so I can send you exciting updates about the beauties of free movement. As a tragic Remoaner that should make you happy?
As a third country national you can roam but not automatically settle in the other Schengen states. Your visa will only allow you to live in Spain.
I've no desire to settle in two countries simultaneously. I am a Nomad!
Indeed this is what keeps me from moving to Spain right now. I am getting a lot of travel from the Gazette, and...... I love it. Wandering the world musing philosophically and meeting random people and writing the odd essay about my thoughts and experiences, makes me quite happy, it turns out
I was never a homebody, I am not Homo domesticus
However if I am gonna spend a few years madly travelling now my kids are grown (and while I still can, physically) I need a base, and London is a brilliant base, much better than Spain. So it's London's convenience but hideous taxes and rain versus the awkwardness of Spain but lovely weather and much lower tax
Why not Portugal, who although they scraped their overly generous golden visa scheme, the replacement still isn't very hard to meet the criteria for...and in 5 years you get a Portuguese passport. In the meantime, they give you a visa that lets you exist like an EU citizen.
Hmm. Interesting, Trouble is I am quite keen on Ibiza as I have friends there and it is surprisingly bohemian and cultured outside the clubby stuff. And really well connected to London/Madrid - two hubs for anywhere in the world
Portugal is quite charming but the food is shit and the people a little gloomy
It'll be interesting to see how many seats the Tories would win in Scotland if there's a 10% swing from SNP to Labour in each seat.
What vote share are you anticipating for the Tories? There comes a point where Labour just come through the middle in most, but as a rough guide on a 17-18 % Tory vote and a 10% swing SNP to Lab then Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Angus and the Glens, Argyll and Bute, East Renfrewshire would be the targets (not predicting this WILL happen)
Tories got 25% in Scotland in 2019. This time I think they'll get around 20%, so their vote holding up better than elsewhere.
I think they could match 25%. Their vote is suppressed in Scotland more than Labour's (assuming that age drives voting patterns) and given the inevitable Labour win, many Tories will return home with no need to vote tactically against the SNP.
With a gentle comment to Moon Rabbit, getting one thing correct (the timing of the election) does not mean anything else you have predicted is correct. There are, let’s say, 200 regular posters on here. A few of us were bound to get the right month.
But nonetheless, well done. A very good call. And @TSE.
So … what’s going to happen?
I like the “you fluked it… but just in case you are a genius what going to happen” bi polar nature of the post. 🙂
It started with a post last year saying, with the knowledge, contacts and politics nous on PB, we can pinpoint the day the election can be held. Just about no one else really joined so I ploughed on alone.
I wasn’t trying to predict an election date, I was trying to prove the theory that it’s decided by experts working for the good of a political party, not in the gift of one person, like a whimsical political myth. And we can work out same as what those experts are thinking - analytical electoral science. The science can crunch all the planned data release dates and and what they likely say, all the forecast modelling - boat crossings, energy cost drops/rises on inflation and household and business bills - it can find you a sweet spot, 5 weeks to campaign in when promising news comes in, hope is in the air. And that sweet spot, divined by science, can be honed further by planned announcements, rabbit from hat budgets, etc etc to be sweeter still. So we can be ahead of the betting.
And no way, with a partys fortunes to consider, that politics is about ideas at the end of the day and that’s the reason you joined your party, will this decision be in the gift of one leader or clique around them, to call it whimsically, bouncing everybody with a hardly planned for last minute “toss up” decision.
Still a bit early to categorically say, but the way this happened yesterday, I think my theory was actually proved wrong. ☹️
But all the “even a clock is right twice a day” posts miss the point I put a hypothesis out there, that we can work it out - it’s NOT whimsical decision making - hypothesis to be proved or disproved either way. Maybe I was half right, in number 10 had come to see the difficult summer and autumn of more pain than gain in the same way my research said it would be months ago. Maybe I was half right about May 2nd too, in that if there is a pre recess date, May 2nd could be the better result, the Tory Party and Sunak seem more diminished and losers, and opponents pepped, since the locals.
I think this happens next if it puts your mind at rest. CON33 LAB39 LDM16 REF3 GRN3 SNP3 But I also gave seat numbers what that PV + tactical voting produces. CON180 LAB379 LDM48 REF0 GRN1 (Bristols not Brightons) SNP21 PLD4
Labour might easily be in a pickle over immigration. Will it prevent them forming the next government? Hell no.
But they need to formulate a response and policy to the current immigration situation.
Does he stop Rwanda instantly? Yes, says SKS as he wants to introduce "specialist investigators to tackle small boats" (ie presumably to stop them); yes, say all members of the metropolitan elite in unison. But what do Unison members say.
Will SKS' proposal for a highly trained team of "special investigators" convince people that he wants to do anything about illegal immigration and is not simply going to throw the doors wide open.
That is what he has to convince the red wall. All of us on here might throw our hands up as it's bleedin' obvious, but SKS has to show that he wants to Stop the Boats every bit as much as Rishi. Interested to see what Scott's new avatar will be in this light.
The polling shows that immigration is a huge issue for Tory voters. It is far less of one for Labour voters. If Labour does win the election we are all going to have to get use to a government that is focused on the priorities of very different demographics to the ones that have been setting the agenda for the last few years.
Nah, that's bollocks. Immigration is surging up the polls as people finally wake up to these massive movements. The idea it won't plague Starmer is wishful nonsense
HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???
Boris was pro-immigration, as are many on the right. What makes you think they lost control?
It was conscious decision to increase immigration in an attempt at partial amelioration of the economic damage of Brexit. With Covid and the SMO, which the British government has played a foolish bit-part in extending, also putting the boot into the economy they had no choice.
There is no "Lost Control" about it. The Channel fuckers are a very small percentage of arrivals.
Agree. Except.
The boats matter hugely because are the bit that are not under control. The most visual manifestation of the government's inability to secure its borders.
Of course the govt wants large numbers of immigrants and 99.7% of arrivals are at the behest of the government. It is the teeny tiny number on our screens and in the Daily Mail that are the issue because it reminds the country that immigration is indeed out of control. Which for a government is intolerable. SKS isn't saying let them in he is saying he will find another way to Stop the Boats.
HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???
Boris was pro-immigration, as are many on the right. What makes you think they lost control?
It's funny how it's the Right that get so upset about it, but the real harm is to younger people scrapping it out for rental properties in the cities.
Immigration is great for two things that benefit older people - NHS staffing and house prices. That's why despite all the fuss, it's in Tory long term interests to keep levels as high as possible.
Specific types of immigration.
Not all immigration is the same.
A Polish plumber in the red wall is different to a Nigerian nurse in a big city is different to a Chinese student in a university town.
The irony is that many UK demographics are now getting the increase, or reduction, in immigration that they should prefer.
Labour might easily be in a pickle over immigration. Will it prevent them forming the next government? Hell no.
But they need to formulate a response and policy to the current immigration situation.
Does he stop Rwanda instantly? Yes, says SKS as he wants to introduce "specialist investigators to tackle small boats" (ie presumably to stop them); yes, say all members of the metropolitan elite in unison. But what do Unison members say.
Will SKS' proposal for a highly trained team of "special investigators" convince people that he wants to do anything about illegal immigration and is not simply going to throw the doors wide open.
That is what he has to convince the red wall. All of us on here might throw our hands up as it's bleedin' obvious, but SKS has to show that he wants to Stop the Boats every bit as much as Rishi. Interested to see what Scott's new avatar will be in this light.
The polling shows that immigration is a huge issue for Tory voters. It is far less of one for Labour voters. If Labour does win the election we are all going to have to get use to a government that is focused on the priorities of very different demographics to the ones that have been setting the agenda for the last few years.
Nah, that's bollocks. Immigration is surging up the polls as people finally wake up to these massive movements. The idea it won't plague Starmer is wishful nonsense
I'm afraid that the days when reactionary boomers like you set the agenda may be coming to an end ;-)
Immigration will always be an important issue. But if Labour wins the election it will not be the central focus of its programme because Labour voters care about other things more. Tory voters don't.
Labour might easily be in a pickle over immigration. Will it prevent them forming the next government? Hell no.
But they need to formulate a response and policy to the current immigration situation.
Does he stop Rwanda instantly? Yes, says SKS as he wants to introduce "specialist investigators to tackle small boats" (ie presumably to stop them); yes, say all members of the metropolitan elite in unison. But what do Unison members say.
Will SKS' proposal for a highly trained team of "special investigators" convince people that he wants to do anything about illegal immigration and is not simply going to throw the doors wide open.
That is what he has to convince the red wall. All of us on here might throw our hands up as it's bleedin' obvious, but SKS has to show that he wants to Stop the Boats every bit as much as Rishi. Interested to see what Scott's new avatar will be in this light.
The polling shows that immigration is a huge issue for Tory voters. It is far less of one for Labour voters. If Labour does win the election we are all going to have to get use to a government that is focused on the priorities of very different demographics to the ones that have been setting the agenda for the last few years.
Nah, that's bollocks. Immigration is surging up the polls as people finally wake up to these massive movements. The idea it won't plague Starmer is wishful nonsense
SKS will be able to tip the balance back to lissome Catalanas with interesting hair rather than shepherds from Nuristan with lavish beards and no English.
Having had a dose of the alternatives some voters will be less agitated about more culturally proximate incomers.
I predict the Tories will do particularly badly in the Reading area. A seat like the new Earley & Woodley could go to Labour, where their candidate is Chinese-born FT journalist Yuan Yang.
The Labour voters who care about immigration are voting for Reform and left Labour a good number of years ago.
This is not be dismissing or saying Labour takes them for granted but with Labour's current voteshare and electoral performances, it would suggest their immigration policy is not an issue at the moment.
I predict the Tories will do particularly badly in the Reading area. A seat like the new Earley & Woodley could go to Labour, where their candidate is Chinese-born FT journalist Yuan Yang.
Labour are running hard on the claim that Sunak has called the election early because he knows the Rwanda policy won't work.
This is probably a good approach for trying to avoid the election becoming a referendum on whether to do Rwanda flights after the election, because it puts the idea that the flights are pointless front and centre.
This is also interesting in that Labour are going on the offensive on immigration, rather than trying to hide from the issue.
Interesting first campaign video: -Not one sighting of anyone else in the Cabinet, feels presidential but when polling shows his personal brand isn't that strong quite risky. -Clearly putting defence and security front and centre, but that in turn makes it feel a bit doom laden
The Labour voters who care about immigration are voting for Reform and left Labour a good number of years ago.
This is not be dismissing or saying Labour takes them for granted but with Labour's current voteshare and electoral performances, it would suggest their immigration policy is not an issue at the moment.
Am at Reform’s campaign launch, as are Lee Anderson and Ann Widdecombe. Nigel Farage is not.
Isn't the obvious answer to this is if he was, Ofcom are already on GB News ass about him as a "politician" as a presenter and he claims he isn't, that he is non-active honorary president. He doesn't want to lose the £100ks that GB News pay him, nor get taken off air during the GE campaign.
Odds for the majority of constituencies are now up on Bet 365, and I've just been scrolling through them. If they bear any relation to reality, the Tories are indeed heading for a shellacking, with Labour favourites in many surprising places.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
The Labour voters who care about immigration are voting for Reform and left Labour a good number of years ago.
This is not be dismissing or saying Labour takes them for granted but with Labour's current voteshare and electoral performances, it would suggest their immigration policy is not an issue at the moment.
Did/do the Red Wall not care about immigration.
Of course! But as nobody is offering a workable solution it becomes less of a driver than the fact that so much of the red wall is broke and crumbling.
The Labour voters who care about immigration are voting for Reform and left Labour a good number of years ago.
This is not be dismissing or saying Labour takes them for granted but with Labour's current voteshare and electoral performances, it would suggest their immigration policy is not an issue at the moment.
People who care about immigration are not uniform either. You have people who:
- don't like the visible dilution of white Anglo-Saxon Christian culture - are fearful of the influence of political Islam - fear the country is full and want to protect local housing and jobs from competition - simply don't like the idea of insecure borders and a policy out of control
Obviously there's overlap between these but I wouldn't underestimate the fourth one as a big driver. Hence why politicians seem much more exercised about small boats than about legal migration.
SNP MSPs could be whipped into voting against the gravity of the Matheson sanctions which would be an interesting first test of how honest Honest John intends to be.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
These tweets are rather proving the point I made down thread. 10,000 illegal crossing in small boats is the disaster the media will focus upon and talk endlessly about, not the effect of 1.3 million legal immigrants.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
Interesting first campaign video: -Not one sighting of anyone else in the Cabinet, feels presidential but when polling shows his personal brand isn't that strong quite risky. -Clearly putting defence and security front and centre, but that in turn makes it feel a bit doom laden
Labour might easily be in a pickle over immigration. Will it prevent them forming the next government? Hell no.
But they need to formulate a response and policy to the current immigration situation.
Does he stop Rwanda instantly? Yes, says SKS as he wants to introduce "specialist investigators to tackle small boats" (ie presumably to stop them); yes, say all members of the metropolitan elite in unison. But what do Unison members say.
Will SKS' proposal for a highly trained team of "special investigators" convince people that he wants to do anything about illegal immigration and is not simply going to throw the doors wide open.
That is what he has to convince the red wall. All of us on here might throw our hands up as it's bleedin' obvious, but SKS has to show that he wants to Stop the Boats every bit as much as Rishi. Interested to see what Scott's new avatar will be in this light.
The polling shows that immigration is a huge issue for Tory voters. It is far less of one for Labour voters. If Labour does win the election we are all going to have to get use to a government that is focused on the priorities of very different demographics to the ones that have been setting the agenda for the last few years.
Nah, that's bollocks. Immigration is surging up the polls as people finally wake up to these massive movements. The idea it won't plague Starmer is wishful nonsense
I'm afraid that the days when reactionary boomers like you set the agenda may be coming to an end ;-)
Immigration will always be an important issue. But if Labour wins the election it will not be the central focus of its programme because Labour voters care about other things more. Tory voters don't.
It's touching that you think an immigration rate of 700,000 a year, literally 1% of the country every single year, will not be an issue, even as we face the hideous sequelae, from shit in the rivers to hospital waiting lists to child care costs bakrupting councils, but it is also facile. This massive big turd of a problem is about to land with a splat in Starmer's lap. He won't get a minute to ignore it
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
This is a dumb point from “lizzie”. The explosion is after 4th July, they dodge most of this with the early election.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
Lots of elections are really about status quo vs change, but this GE in particular is. I think its hard to claim what really are the long term priorities for the coalition of voters that will vote Labour this time, other than sick of the Tories, plus Labour to date really aren't offering anything. The pledge card is literally we will do a bit. It is different from 1997, where the polling showed enthusiasm for Blair's specific policies and ones which were much more ambitious.
🔴Rishi Sunak Takes Staged Election Question from Conservative Councillor Posing as Ordinary Voter
The PM thanked the hi-vis jacket-wearing man for his “important question” without declaring that he was in fact local Conservative Councillor Ross Hills
Maybe I am wrong but i have never experienced a General Election where one major side (the tories) have seemingly given up and no fight - Even in the landslide years of previous elections , the other side seemed to fight . Its as if the tories know they are not fit for another 5 years . Sunak looked like and presented like a man who hated his job and was looking forward to retirement but just did not have the heart to say so so spends a few months waiting for his employer to make him redundant anyway. The tories do well because they usually have a a good ground operation to get out the core or traditional vote - I doubt that will happen in the same way this time - I think the tories could get well under a 100 seats
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
Absolutely excellent news about Farage. He's finished now in UK politics. USA: you're welcome.
My take is different. Rather than finished in UK politics, he’s working towards the Conservative Membership Card.
Patel, who is a smart bet for next leader, would certainly give it to him.
Possibly, but I don't think so. His heart now lies across the Atlantic.
Nope. His heart lies as big fish in the Conservative Party.
You’ve not been in any Conservative clubs recently have you? If Nigel walks though the door of any of them anywhere in country he would be greeted by a spontaneous standing applause. And some of them take a good few seconds to reach standing position too.
With a gentle comment to Moon Rabbit, getting one thing correct (the timing of the election) does not mean anything else you have predicted is correct. There are, let’s say, 200 regular posters on here. A few of us were bound to get the right month.
But nonetheless, well done. A very good call. And @TSE.
So … what’s going to happen?
I like the “you fluked it… but just in case you are a genius what going to happen” bi polar nature of the post. 🙂
It started with a post last year saying, with the knowledge, contacts and politics nous on PB, we can pinpoint the day the election can be held. Just about no one else really joined so I ploughed on alone.
I wasn’t trying to predict an election date, I was trying to prove the theory that it’s decided by experts working for the good of a political party, not in the gift of one person, like a whimsical political myth. And we can work out same as what those experts are thinking - analytical electoral science. The science can crunch all the planned data release dates and and what they likely say, all the forecast modelling - boat crossings, energy cost drops/rises on inflation and household and business bills - it can find you a sweet spot, 5 weeks to campaign in when promising news comes in, hope is in the air. And that sweet spot, divined by science, can be honed further by planned announcements, rabbit from hat budgets, etc etc to be sweeter still. So we can be ahead of the betting.
And no way, with a partys fortunes to consider, that politics is about ideas at the end of the day and that’s the reason you joined your party, will this decision be in the gift of one leader or clique around them, to call it whimsically, bouncing everybody with a hardly planned for last minute “toss up” decision.
Still a bit early to categorically say, but the way this happened yesterday, I think my theory was actually proved wrong. ☹️
But all the “even a clock is right twice a day” posts miss the point I put a hypothesis out there, that we can work it out - it’s NOT whimsical decision making - hypothesis to be proved or disproved either way. Maybe I was half right, in number 10 had come to see the difficult summer and autumn of more pain than gain in the same way my research said it would be months ago. Maybe I was half right about May 2nd too, in that if there is a pre recess date, May 2nd could be the better result, the Tory Party and Sunak seem more diminished and losers, and opponents pepped, since the locals.
I think this happens next if it puts your mind at rest. CON33 LAB39 LDM16 REF3 GRN3 SNP3 But I also gave seat numbers what that PV + tactical voting produces. CON180 LAB379 LDM48 REF0 GRN1 (Bristols not Brightons) SNP21 PLD4
That sounds reasonably plausible. LDs will do better than current polling as they get election coverage, and they'll benefit most from tactical voting. Green and Reform support will evaporate in the face of the reality of FPTP. Some Cons will come back home.
The Labour voters who care about immigration are voting for Reform and left Labour a good number of years ago.
This is not be dismissing or saying Labour takes them for granted but with Labour's current voteshare and electoral performances, it would suggest their immigration policy is not an issue at the moment.
Did/do the Red Wall not care about immigration.
I’ve said before - the number of non-white faces (ok, we’re at the confluence of the M62 and A1 and so have a lot of logistics here with shift work that attracts immigrants, so is probably higher than other parts of the Red Wall) has increased noticeably since Brexit. We have Africans and Asians on the streets, in the shops and supermarkets, of Knottingley, Pontefract and Castleford now, something that pretty much wasn’t the case before Brexit, other than taxi drivers and takeaway workers who all live in Bradford. The new people all live here.
Now this doesn’t concern me in the slightest, but if you’re the kind of Red Wall voter round here who is motivated by immigration then you’re not going to be happy with the Tories.
And the problems with getting a doctor, crumbling public realm, etc, etc etc, won’t help either. People know the Tories have shafted them, I don’t think wibbling on about immmigration will help in large parts of the Red Wall. The Brexit-related blinkers are gone.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
Maybe I am wrong but i have never experienced a General Election where one major side (the tories) have seemingly given up and no fight - Even in the landslide years of previous elections , the other side seemed to fight . Its as if the tories know they are not fit for another 5 years . Sunak looked like and presented like a man who hated his job and was looking forward to retirement but just did not have the heart to say so so spends a few months waiting for his employer to make him redundant anyway. The tories do well because they usually have a a good ground operation to get out the core or traditional vote - I doubt that will happen in the same way this time - I think the tories could get well under a 100 seats
I think it is also that they realise that it won't really make a blind bit of difference. People have made their mind up and 6 weeks of hard campaigning won't change that. People need to be on receive mode for that to be the case, but they aren't.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
But Scott will stop posting about it as soon as Labour win
🔴Rishi Sunak Takes Staged Election Question from Conservative Councillor Posing as Ordinary Voter
The PM thanked the hi-vis jacket-wearing man for his “important question” without declaring that he was in fact local Conservative Councillor Ross Hills
That's going to be the case for every question from the "general" public this election.
🔴Rishi Sunak Takes Staged Election Question from Conservative Councillor Posing as Ordinary Voter
The PM thanked the hi-vis jacket-wearing man for his “important question” without declaring that he was in fact local Conservative Councillor Ross Hills
Such a stupid thing to do. That's his campaign team's fault, not Sunak's. Why do they do this? Labour have form on this sort of nonsense too.
Maybe I am wrong but i have never experienced a General Election where one major side (the tories) have seemingly given up and no fight - Even in the landslide years of previous elections , the other side seemed to fight . Its as if the tories know they are not fit for another 5 years . Sunak looked like and presented like a man who hated his job and was looking forward to retirement but just did not have the heart to say so so spends a few months waiting for his employer to make him redundant anyway. The tories do well because they usually have a a good ground operation to get out the core or traditional vote - I doubt that will happen in the same way this time - I think the tories could get well under a 100 seats
Much nearer 200. Elections are mostly done on media these days and new social media. As most people don’t follow much politics, If those voters are Conservative minded and like the Conservative messaging, they will come out and vote conservative. The gap between Con and Lab can close up to as little as 6 or 5% is my expectation.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
But Scott will stop posting about it as soon as Labour win
Labour might easily be in a pickle over immigration. Will it prevent them forming the next government? Hell no.
But they need to formulate a response and policy to the current immigration situation.
Does he stop Rwanda instantly? Yes, says SKS as he wants to introduce "specialist investigators to tackle small boats" (ie presumably to stop them); yes, say all members of the metropolitan elite in unison. But what do Unison members say.
Will SKS' proposal for a highly trained team of "special investigators" convince people that he wants to do anything about illegal immigration and is not simply going to throw the doors wide open.
That is what he has to convince the red wall. All of us on here might throw our hands up as it's bleedin' obvious, but SKS has to show that he wants to Stop the Boats every bit as much as Rishi. Interested to see what Scott's new avatar will be in this light.
The polling shows that immigration is a huge issue for Tory voters. It is far less of one for Labour voters. If Labour does win the election we are all going to have to get use to a government that is focused on the priorities of very different demographics to the ones that have been setting the agenda for the last few years.
Nah, that's bollocks. Immigration is surging up the polls as people finally wake up to these massive movements. The idea it won't plague Starmer is wishful nonsense
I'm afraid that the days when reactionary boomers like you set the agenda may be coming to an end ;-)
Immigration will always be an important issue. But if Labour wins the election it will not be the central focus of its programme because Labour voters care about other things more. Tory voters don't.
When Labour last entered government in 1997, net migration to the UK was 48,000.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
Presumably that would be a NATO issue. Given how much of a struggle Ukraine has been for Russia, do we think they would fare better against against a situation where an actual collective defence situation is triggered?
If the question is: can Britain defend Latvia alone? then the answer might be no, but is the question relevant?
Breaking: Reform are running in 630 of the 650 seats up at the general election. Every one in England, Wales and Scotland. Bad news for the Tories. Their vote share eaten into everywhere
Maybe I am wrong but i have never experienced a General Election where one major side (the tories) have seemingly given up and no fight - Even in the landslide years of previous elections , the other side seemed to fight . Its as if the tories know they are not fit for another 5 years . Sunak looked like and presented like a man who hated his job and was looking forward to retirement but just did not have the heart to say so so spends a few months waiting for his employer to make him redundant anyway. The tories do well because they usually have a a good ground operation to get out the core or traditional vote - I doubt that will happen in the same way this time - I think the tories could get well under a 100 seats
The Tories had realistically given up hope of winning in 1997.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Apparently if an extremely unlikely series of events had led to Ukraine holding on to its Soviet era nukes (which we are told are pretty useless anyway) this would have stopped Putin invading. Afaics from recent evidence there’s nothing in Putin’s psyche that would be remotely deterred by a few corroding ICBMs.
Labour might easily be in a pickle over immigration. Will it prevent them forming the next government? Hell no.
But they need to formulate a response and policy to the current immigration situation.
Does he stop Rwanda instantly? Yes, says SKS as he wants to introduce "specialist investigators to tackle small boats" (ie presumably to stop them); yes, say all members of the metropolitan elite in unison. But what do Unison members say.
Will SKS' proposal for a highly trained team of "special investigators" convince people that he wants to do anything about illegal immigration and is not simply going to throw the doors wide open.
That is what he has to convince the red wall. All of us on here might throw our hands up as it's bleedin' obvious, but SKS has to show that he wants to Stop the Boats every bit as much as Rishi. Interested to see what Scott's new avatar will be in this light.
The polling shows that immigration is a huge issue for Tory voters. It is far less of one for Labour voters. If Labour does win the election we are all going to have to get use to a government that is focused on the priorities of very different demographics to the ones that have been setting the agenda for the last few years.
Nah, that's bollocks. Immigration is surging up the polls as people finally wake up to these massive movements. The idea it won't plague Starmer is wishful nonsense
I'm afraid that the days when reactionary boomers like you set the agenda may be coming to an end ;-)
Immigration will always be an important issue. But if Labour wins the election it will not be the central focus of its programme because Labour voters care about other things more. Tory voters don't.
When Labour last entered government in 1997, net migration to the UK was 48,000.
I always think the focus on net migration is a bit like the focus on GDP, its not quite the right focus, should be taken into a wider context. Just like we should think about very least GDP / capita, the gross inflow and outflows are also important. 1.3 million people in is huge number, so is the 500k+ out. We have to ask what are the reasons, is it just student number churn, is there a brain drain i.e. who are the people coming and going. It quite different importing all doctors, lawyers, academics versus low skilled, or losing them.
With a gentle comment to Moon Rabbit, getting one thing correct (the timing of the election) does not mean anything else you have predicted is correct. There are, let’s say, 200 regular posters on here. A few of us were bound to get the right month.
But nonetheless, well done. A very good call. And @TSE.
So … what’s going to happen?
I like the “you fluked it… but just in case you are a genius what going to happen” bi polar nature of the post. 🙂
It started with a post last year saying, with the knowledge, contacts and politics nous on PB, we can pinpoint the day the election can be held. Just about no one else really joined so I ploughed on alone.
I wasn’t trying to predict an election date, I was trying to prove the theory that it’s decided by experts working for the good of a political party, not in the gift of one person, like a whimsical political myth. And we can work out same as what those experts are thinking - analytical electoral science. The science can crunch all the planned data release dates and and what they likely say, all the forecast modelling - boat crossings, energy cost drops/rises on inflation and household and business bills - it can find you a sweet spot, 5 weeks to campaign in when promising news comes in, hope is in the air. And that sweet spot, divined by science, can be honed further by planned announcements, rabbit from hat budgets, etc etc to be sweeter still. So we can be ahead of the betting.
And no way, with a partys fortunes to consider, that politics is about ideas at the end of the day and that’s the reason you joined your party, will this decision be in the gift of one leader or clique around them, to call it whimsically, bouncing everybody with a hardly planned for last minute “toss up” decision.
Still a bit early to categorically say, but the way this happened yesterday, I think my theory was actually proved wrong. ☹️
But all the “even a clock is right twice a day” posts miss the point I put a hypothesis out there, that we can work it out - it’s NOT whimsical decision making - hypothesis to be proved or disproved either way. Maybe I was half right, in number 10 had come to see the difficult summer and autumn of more pain than gain in the same way my research said it would be months ago. Maybe I was half right about May 2nd too, in that if there is a pre recess date, May 2nd could be the better result, the Tory Party and Sunak seem more diminished and losers, and opponents pepped, since the locals.
I think this happens next if it puts your mind at rest. CON33 LAB39 LDM16 REF3 GRN3 SNP3 But I also gave seat numbers what that PV + tactical voting produces. CON180 LAB379 LDM48 REF0 GRN1 (Bristols not Brightons) SNP21 PLD4
That sounds reasonably plausible. LDs will do better than current polling as they get election coverage, and they'll benefit most from tactical voting. Green and Reform support will evaporate in the face of the reality of FPTP. Some Cons will come back home.
I agree. The libdems could even get a higher PV than any opinion poll actually gives them, as polling companies get told Labour or Green or don’t know, but the tactical vote is Lib Dem. I put this theory out there many years ago calling it the Dutch Salute - something Lib Dem’s get on Election count morning no one saw coming.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
I'm sure the good people of the Baltic states and Moldova will be thoroughly reassured. But then I think the argument you (and Trump and his cultists) are making is that these are quarrels between peoples in a faraway land of which we know nothing.
Trump was of course in power when the Russians decided to send assassins armed with chemical weapons into the UK and killed a member of the public.
Labour might easily be in a pickle over immigration. Will it prevent them forming the next government? Hell no.
But they need to formulate a response and policy to the current immigration situation.
Does he stop Rwanda instantly? Yes, says SKS as he wants to introduce "specialist investigators to tackle small boats" (ie presumably to stop them); yes, say all members of the metropolitan elite in unison. But what do Unison members say.
Will SKS' proposal for a highly trained team of "special investigators" convince people that he wants to do anything about illegal immigration and is not simply going to throw the doors wide open.
That is what he has to convince the red wall. All of us on here might throw our hands up as it's bleedin' obvious, but SKS has to show that he wants to Stop the Boats every bit as much as Rishi. Interested to see what Scott's new avatar will be in this light.
The polling shows that immigration is a huge issue for Tory voters. It is far less of one for Labour voters. If Labour does win the election we are all going to have to get use to a government that is focused on the priorities of very different demographics to the ones that have been setting the agenda for the last few years.
Nah, that's bollocks. Immigration is surging up the polls as people finally wake up to these massive movements. The idea it won't plague Starmer is wishful nonsense
I'm afraid that the days when reactionary boomers like you set the agenda may be coming to an end ;-)
Immigration will always be an important issue. But if Labour wins the election it will not be the central focus of its programme because Labour voters care about other things more. Tory voters don't.
Yes and no.
Labour voters don't care too much about immigration (those that did already left the party).
Labour voters do care about things that immigration makes worse if there's no investment to balance it - housing, services, housing, infrastructure, housing, rail (in cities), housing, roads (in towns), housing and housing to name a few.
If the new Labour government slashes the planning red tape that holds back investment in housing etc and turns on the spending taps on investment on our roads, rails and everything else that needs investing in with a growing population then there will be no issues at all with having high migration.
If the Labour government caves to NIMBYs and decides it has no money for infrastructure (which the last Labour government did, it spent on other things but didn't build new towns, new roads etc) then we're just going to suffer more overcrowding and more irritancies on issues that do matter to all voters, even those who don't care about race.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
But Scott will stop posting about it as soon as Labour win
Scott is PBs own Steve Bray.
What are they going to do come July ?
We get to find out how much anti-brexitism was sui generis, and how much merely the anti-toryism du nos jours.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Through either senescence or malevolence or both, JRB has been a foreign policy disaster yet people on here are fucking rock hard for him 24/7.
Comments
Immigration is great for two things that benefit older people - NHS staffing and house prices. That's why despite all the fuss, it's in Tory long term interests to keep levels as high as possible.
One of those drives voters to Labour and the other to Reform.
He will try and campaign on the economy but it won't be enough.
There is no "Lost Control" about it. The Channel fuckers are a very small percentage of arrivals.
Indeed this is what keeps me from moving to Spain right now. I am getting a lot of travel from the Gazette, and...... I love it. Wandering the world musing philosophically and meeting random people and writing the odd essay about my thoughts and experiences, makes me quite happy, it turns out
I was never a homebody, I am not Homo domesticus
However if I am gonna spend a few years madly travelling now my kids are grown (and while I still can, physically) I need a base, and London is a brilliant base, much better than Spain. So it's London's convenience but hideous taxes and rain versus the awkwardness of Spain but lovely weather and much lower tax
BREAKING: Holyrood committee hands shamed SNP MSP Michael Matheson a 27 day suspension and a 54 day salary withdrawal.
Parliament will vote on whether to approve the recommendations.
https://www.exteriores.gob.es/Consulados/londres/en/ServiciosConsulares/Paginas/Consular/Digital-Nomad-Visa.aspx
*checks*
Ah, only if it means voting Tory.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24339423.douglas-ross-asks-unionists-vote-tactically-general-election/
And that must mean we are also contemporaries. Unfortunately I can't say more because I don't want to doxx myself at this point
Choose your poison.
Her answer "I would never have called them subbies" was pure English class based comedy. Mitford and Betjeman level
Portugal is quite charming but the food is shit and the people a little gloomy
It started with a post last year saying, with the knowledge, contacts and politics nous on PB, we can pinpoint the day the election can be held. Just about no one else really joined so I ploughed on alone.
I wasn’t trying to predict an election date, I was trying to prove the theory that it’s decided by experts working for the good of a political party, not in the gift of one person, like a whimsical political myth. And we can work out same as what those experts are thinking - analytical electoral science. The science can crunch all the planned data release dates and and what they likely say, all the forecast modelling - boat crossings, energy cost drops/rises on inflation and household and business bills - it can find you a sweet spot, 5 weeks to campaign in when promising news comes in, hope is in the air. And that sweet spot, divined by science, can be honed further by planned announcements, rabbit from hat budgets, etc etc to be sweeter still. So we can be ahead of the betting.
And no way, with a partys fortunes to consider, that politics is about ideas at the end of the day and that’s the reason you joined your party, will this decision be in the gift of one leader or clique around them, to call it whimsically, bouncing everybody with a hardly planned for last minute “toss up” decision.
Still a bit early to categorically say, but the way this happened yesterday, I think my theory was actually proved wrong. ☹️
But all the “even a clock is right twice a day” posts miss the point I put a hypothesis out there, that we can work it out - it’s NOT whimsical decision making - hypothesis to be proved or disproved either way. Maybe I was half right, in number 10 had come to see the difficult summer and autumn of more pain than gain in the same way my research said it would be months ago. Maybe I was half right about May 2nd too, in that if there is a pre recess date, May 2nd could be the better result, the Tory Party and Sunak seem more diminished and losers, and opponents pepped, since the locals.
I think this happens next if it puts your mind at rest.
CON33 LAB39 LDM16 REF3 GRN3 SNP3
But I also gave seat numbers what that PV + tactical voting produces.
CON180 LAB379 LDM48 REF0 GRN1 (Bristols not Brightons) SNP21 PLD4
The boats matter hugely because are the bit that are not under control. The most visual manifestation of the government's inability to secure its borders.
Of course the govt wants large numbers of immigrants and 99.7% of arrivals are at the behest of the government. It is the teeny tiny number on our screens and in the Daily Mail that are the issue because it reminds the country that immigration is indeed out of control. Which for a government is intolerable. SKS isn't saying let them in he is saying he will find another way to Stop the Boats.
Not all immigration is the same.
A Polish plumber in the red wall is different to a Nigerian nurse in a big city is different to a Chinese student in a university town.
The irony is that many UK demographics are now getting the increase, or reduction, in immigration that they should prefer.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.167249195
Immigration will always be an important issue. But if Labour wins the election it will not be the central focus of its programme because Labour voters care about other things more. Tory voters don't.
Having had a dose of the alternatives some voters will be less agitated about more culturally proximate incomers.
Which might give our PB Tories the slightest glimmer of hope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earley_and_Woodley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Yang_(journalist)
https://electionresults.parliament.uk/elections/2167
This is not be dismissing or saying Labour takes them for granted but with Labour's current voteshare and electoral performances, it would suggest their immigration policy is not an issue at the moment.
USA: you're welcome.
This is probably a good approach for trying to avoid the election becoming a referendum on whether to do Rwanda flights after the election, because it puts the idea that the flights are pointless front and centre.
This is also interesting in that Labour are going on the offensive on immigration, rather than trying to hide from the issue.
Interesting first campaign video:
-Not one sighting of anyone else in the Cabinet, feels presidential but when polling shows his personal brand isn't that strong quite risky.
-Clearly putting defence and security front and centre, but that in turn makes it feel a bit doom laden
https://x.com/VinnyMcAv/status/1793582237809627386
Am at Reform’s campaign launch, as are Lee Anderson and Ann Widdecombe. Nigel Farage is not.
Victoria Derbyshire, "You might lose your job.. You've got a majority of what?"
Steve Baker, "4,500"
VD, "You might not be an MP come July 5th"
SB, "That is absolutely true"
The interview then goes downhill from there..
https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1793430138945990658
Patel, who is a smart bet for next leader, would certainly give it to him.
"How These European Countries Are Preparing for WW3", The Infographics Show, YouTube, 22May2024, see
https://youtu.be/nSnu52Oy_gw?si=nh5N4453dBudus-x&t=694
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
https://ahrefs.com/writing-tools/summarizer, "Professional" setting
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
- don't like the visible dilution of white Anglo-Saxon Christian culture
- are fearful of the influence of political Islam
- fear the country is full and want to protect local housing and jobs from competition
- simply don't like the idea of insecure borders and a policy out of control
Obviously there's overlap between these but I wouldn't underestimate the fourth one as a big driver. Hence why politicians seem much more exercised about small boats than about legal migration.
SNP MSPs could be whipped into voting against the gravity of the Matheson sanctions which would be an interesting first test of how honest Honest John intends to be.
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
Not that different actually.
🔴Rishi Sunak Takes Staged Election Question from Conservative Councillor Posing as Ordinary Voter
The PM thanked the hi-vis jacket-wearing man for his “important question” without declaring that he was in fact local Conservative Councillor Ross Hills
The tories do well because they usually have a a good ground operation to get out the core or traditional vote - I doubt that will happen in the same way this time - I think the tories could get well under a 100 seats
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
You’ve not been in any Conservative clubs recently have you? If Nigel walks though the door of any of them anywhere in country he would be greeted by a spontaneous standing applause.
And some of them take a good few seconds to reach standing position too.
Now this doesn’t concern me in the slightest, but if you’re the kind of Red Wall voter round here who is motivated by immigration then you’re not going to be happy with the Tories.
And the problems with getting a doctor, crumbling public realm, etc, etc etc, won’t help either. People know the Tories have shafted them, I don’t think wibbling on about immmigration will help in large parts of the Red Wall. The Brexit-related blinkers are gone.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What are they going to do come July ?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story
If the question is: can Britain defend Latvia alone? then the answer might be no, but is the question relevant?
Breaking: Reform are running in 630 of the 650 seats up at the general election. Every one in England, Wales and Scotland. Bad news for the Tories. Their vote share eaten into everywhere
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/uk-general-election-key-constituencies-betting-33295556
But then I think the argument you (and Trump and his cultists) are making is that these are quarrels between peoples in a faraway land of which we know nothing.
Trump was of course in power when the Russians decided to send assassins armed with chemical weapons into the UK and killed a member of the public.
Labour voters don't care too much about immigration (those that did already left the party).
Labour voters do care about things that immigration makes worse if there's no investment to balance it - housing, services, housing, infrastructure, housing, rail (in cities), housing, roads (in towns), housing and housing to name a few.
If the new Labour government slashes the planning red tape that holds back investment in housing etc and turns on the spending taps on investment on our roads, rails and everything else that needs investing in with a growing population then there will be no issues at all with having high migration.
If the Labour government caves to NIMBYs and decides it has no money for infrastructure (which the last Labour government did, it spent on other things but didn't build new towns, new roads etc) then we're just going to suffer more overcrowding and more irritancies on issues that do matter to all voters, even those who don't care about race.