Incoming extinction level event for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

ToryJim said:

These are the figures with and without tactical voting

🚨📊 || MRP Poll from @ElectCalculus
/ @FindoutnowUK:

Without Tactical Voting
🌹 LAB: 493 (+297)
🌳 CON: 72 (-300)
🔶 LDM: 39 (+31)
🎗️ SNP: 22 (-26)
🌼 PLC: 4 (+2)
🌍 GRN: 2 (+1)

With Tactical Voting:
🌹 LAB: 476 (+280)
🌳 CON: 66 (-306)
🔶 LDM: 59 (+51)
🎗️ SNP: 26 (-22)
🌼 PLC: 3 (+1)
🌍 GRN: 2 (+1)

Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?

Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.

I'm not really sure how I should vote.

I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.

So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.

I'll go with my gut on the day.

I too am in a Tory safe seat with Lab second. But if they win here they have a 250 seat majority already. Does 251 really make things better for them?

So I shall choose between LD or Green, who won't win.

bondegezou said:

Sean_F said:

bondegezou said:

I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.

Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.

Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.

He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.

The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were:
Alliance 29%
Easton 23%
DUP 20%
UUP 12%
Green 7%
TUV 4%
SF 2%
SDLP 2%
others 2%

But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.

Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.

Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.

Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.

DavidL said:

In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.

Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.

megasaur said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.

Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.

Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.

Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.

You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commentet here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.

DM_Andy said:

Don't successful SF candidates get offices in Westminster/Portcullis House? I've bumped (literally) into Gerry Adams before in Parliament Square.

LostPassword said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.

Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.

Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.

Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.

It was suggested at one stage that German be adopted as an (or the) official language of the US, so there were definitely some differences in language that persisted after immigration from different countries in Europe.

EPG said:

bondegezou said:

Sean_F said:

bondegezou said:

I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.

Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.

Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.

He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.

The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were:
Alliance 29%
Easton 23%
DUP 20%
UUP 12%
Green 7%
TUV 4%
SF 2%
SDLP 2%
others 2%

But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.

Indeed. This isn't a normal NI unionist constituency as is clear from its history. The last unionist MP exited the party in protest at alliance with the Tories and won (in 2010!). Ultimately, everyday life has relative normalcy compared to other nearby constituencies - by which I mean, the average resident is more socioeconomically upscale, and the Catholic minority encounters less sectarianism and one even hears of "mixed marriages".

Farooq said:

megasaur said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.

Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.

Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.

Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.

You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.

I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven.
I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.

There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.

DavidL said:

In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.

Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.

Foxy said:

Farooq said:

megasaur said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.

Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.

Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.

Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.

You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.

I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven.
I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.

There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.

It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.

Nigelb said:

I see Torsten Bell is running for Labour.

It will be good to have another numerate MP.

williamglenn said:

Farooq said:

megasaur said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.

Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.

Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.

Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.

You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.

I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven.
I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.

There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.

"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

Sunil_Prasannan said:

"Team America" on Channel 4 right now!

bondegezou said:

megasaur said:

Foxy said:

Farooq said:

megasaur said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.

Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.

Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.

Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.

You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.

I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven.
I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.

There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.

It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.

Just as it's what those 750 juries which convicted those subpostmasters thought is what matters. Innocent? Suicide? Bankrupt? Fuck em!

I salute your indefatigablity

So are you saying we can't trust any conviction at all?

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.

Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.

Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.

Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.

It was suggested at one stage that German be adopted as an (or the) official language of the US, so there were definitely some differences in language that persisted after immigration from different countries in Europe.

That's something of an urban myth: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-german-vote/

Big_Ian said:

ohnotnow said:

DavidL said:

In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.

Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.

Would be funny though, you've got to admit.

I'm looking forward to an election night Portillofest!

Malmesbury said:

bondegezou said:

megasaur said:

Foxy said:

Farooq said:

megasaur said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.

Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.

Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.

Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.

You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.

I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven.
I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.

There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.

It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.

Just as it's what those 750 juries which convicted those subpostmasters thought is what matters. Innocent? Suicide? Bankrupt? Fuck em!

I salute your indefatigablity

So are you saying we can't trust any conviction at all?

The small difference with the Trump trial and the Post Office prosecutions is that Trump hasn’t denied the facts. Just that he should have been prosecuted for doing what he did.

Nigelb said:

I see Torsten Bell is running for Labour.

It will be good to have another numerate MP.

LostPassword said:

EPG said:

AbandonedHope said:

rottenborough said:

Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?

Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.

Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.

Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.

It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.

Sinn Fein under Michelle O'Neill in Northern Ireland have been making several moves to be more emollient towards the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I think this is a strategy to reassure non-sectarian voters, and more moderate Nationalists, that SF aren't aiming to create divisions. This may well be part of a long-term strategy to persuade moderate Nationalists and those in the middle that it is safe to vote for Irish Unity, because it isn't being pursued in a divisive anti-British way.

Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.

ToryJim said:

LostPassword said:

EPG said:

AbandonedHope said:

rottenborough said:

Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?

Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.

Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.

Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.

It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.

Sinn Fein under Michelle O'Neill in Northern Ireland have been making several moves to be more emollient towards the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I think this is a strategy to reassure non-sectarian voters, and more moderate Nationalists, that SF aren't aiming to create divisions. This may well be part of a long-term strategy to persuade moderate Nationalists and those in the middle that it is safe to vote for Irish Unity, because it isn't being pursued in a divisive anti-British way.

Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.

I just cannot see SF being able to drop abstentionism, it would involve them taking an oath of allegiance to the crown. That of itself precludes the possibility. Even if they could get past that principled obstacle, the risk is that a sizeable portion of their activists, elected officials and voters split off to form a more hard line party. I can’t see them contemplating the risk.

ToryJim said:

LostPassword said:

EPG said:

AbandonedHope said:

rottenborough said:

Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?

Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.

Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.

Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.

It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.

Sinn Fein under Michelle O'Neill in Northern Ireland have been making several moves to be more emollient towards the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I think this is a strategy to reassure non-sectarian voters, and more moderate Nationalists, that SF aren't aiming to create divisions. This may well be part of a long-term strategy to persuade moderate Nationalists and those in the middle that it is safe to vote for Irish Unity, because it isn't being pursued in a divisive anti-British way.

Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.

I just cannot see SF being able to drop abstentionism, it would involve them taking an oath of allegiance to the crown. That of itself precludes the possibility. Even if they could get past that principled obstacle, the risk is that a sizeable portion of their activists, elected officials and voters split off to form a more hard line party. I can’t see them contemplating the risk.

Pro_Rata said:

On the NI front, I note a seat prediction slipped out a few days ago, though didn't see it mentioned on here:

https://x.com/Ireland_Votes/status/1793940942417723406?t=vWSrTjCyte6ftfPc8Coq1g&s=19

Advantage in seats:
SF 10
DUP 4
All 3
TUV 1

The party agreements mentioned below might move a couple of seats here.

DM_Andy said:

At what point does the "Labour are going to win anyway, vote Reform to give the post-election Tories a message that they need to be more conservative" message cut through?

megasaur said:

Foxy said:

Farooq said:

megasaur said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

pigeon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)

Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.

Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)

I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.

They can say what they like.

I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.

It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.

No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.

I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.

At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).

Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.

That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?

It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.

Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m
pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.

State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.

The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.

Say what you really mean.

Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.

Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.

Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.

Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.

You don't half talk some nonsense. Anglo-Saxon means English (which every one who isn't English quite rightly aspires to be). And while I am at it, it's possible to think that trump is the worst person in the world but also that the law should treat him like anyone else. #davidl is a well respected commenter here and a distinguished prosecutor. If he sees the trump case as iffy it probably is.

I don't think DavidL doubts that crimes were committed. If I have understood his position, it's that the associated crime (New York Election Law Section 17-152) that caused them to be upgraded them from misdemeanours is the cause of his doubts. In short, he believes that this might have been insufficiently proven.
I hope I haven't misrepresented him too badly when I say that he doesn't seem to doubt that the falsifying business records part on their own would be bang to rights.

There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Trump broke the law on many counts. None.

It doesn't really matter what we think. It's what that jury yesterday thought that matters.

Just as it's what those 750 juries which convicted those subpostmasters thought is what matters. Innocent? Suicide? Bankrupt? Fuck em!

I salute your indefatigablity

DM_Andy said:

ToryJim said:

LostPassword said:

EPG said:

AbandonedHope said:

rottenborough said:

Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?

Good to know that somebody else has noticed this move @rottenborough. Was pondering whilst driving yesterday morning. Doesn’t make sense that the leader of the nurses union - with a considerable amount of clout (especially with an incoming Labour admin) - would relinquish control/power.

Would you sacrifice the power you have bargaining/negotiating with HM Government just to sit on your hands on the sidelines? Suggests to me that Sinn Fein are open to taking their seats in the Commons. The current bunch are vastly different to Adams, McGuinness, etc but… both Adams and McGuinness recognised the influence they had as part of power sharing.

Perhaps Sinne Fein have realised a) they can get along with some Unionists and other parties and b) it’s better to be on inside pissing out.

It is hard to see what they would gain. The same calculation was made in 2017, when it would have been hugely impactful. Their political strength comes from a disparate range of sources in the UK, Ireland and the United States, and Westminster has never been one of those sources. In particular, unlike most political parties, they are sometimes treated as a quasi-sovereign subject of international treaties, as a guarantor of the peace process. This gives them access to senior leaders of the United States at a level which is not enjoyed by, say, Plaid Cymru. Westminster seats would help to augment one of these sources of power (over the UK executive) while potentially diminishing others - e.g. by having to take concrete positions on UK policies, both putting its MPs in harm's way of controversial votes, and potentially normalising the party and its members by dealing with day-to-day British administration.

Sinn Fein under Michelle O'Neill in Northern Ireland have been making several moves to be more emollient towards the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I think this is a strategy to reassure non-sectarian voters, and more moderate Nationalists, that SF aren't aiming to create divisions. This may well be part of a long-term strategy to persuade moderate Nationalists and those in the middle that it is safe to vote for Irish Unity, because it isn't being pursued in a divisive anti-British way.

Although it would be a very big step, you could see how dropping Abstentionism would fit into such a strategy, though I would have expected that if this was on the cards they would be talking about it before an election campaign.

I just cannot see SF being able to drop abstentionism, it would involve them taking an oath of allegiance to the crown. That of itself precludes the possibility. Even if they could get past that principled obstacle, the risk is that a sizeable portion of their activists, elected officials and voters split off to form a more hard line party. I can’t see them contemplating the risk.

Can we just drop the oath of allegiance? Does it serve any purpose?

Foxy said:

Anabobazina said:

@Foxy if you vote for an also-ran party (Lib or Green) in Mid Leicestershire you are simply enhancing your chances of returning a Tory MP. Fine if that’s what you want but, if not, don’t mess around in the FPP bear pit.

Yes, there is that risk, but if my seat comes into contention then there would be a massive landslide against the Tories.

The main reason though is that I don't agree with so much of Labour's plans, so won't vote for them.

Roger said:

Does anyone know if Patel and Braverman are expected to avoid the predicted cull?

bobbob said:

Why didn’t they dump fishy rishi after the locals? Need to go back to basics and talk common sense ! Nobody likes starmer people just want the Tory’s and rishi out !!

DM_Andy said:

Roger said:

Does anyone know if Patel and Braverman are expected to avoid the predicted cull?

Both yes, Braverman 11.5% majority, 76% chance of winning. Patel 2.5% majority 55% chance of winning.

carnforth said:

Nigelb said:

I see Torsten Bell is running for Labour.

It will be good to have another numerate MP.

Here are some of his numbers:

https://order-order.com/2024/05/31/tax-raising-fanatic-resolution-foundation-director-given-labour-candidacy/

Andy_JS said:

Anyone have a list of the 66 seats the Tories would hold? I wonder if Micky Fab's is one of them.

carnforth said:

1/10 of the BBC most read stories are about the election.

Malmesbury said:

kyf_100 said:

carnforth said:

1/10 of the BBC most read stories are about the election.

It's easy to forget that PB is a filter bubble

Political Betting is obsessed with politics.

Being obsessed with politics is considered borderline anti-social by about 80% of the adult population.

pigeon said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

I'll be amazed if Sunak holds on in Richmond.

Richmond is all farmers and old people. If the Conservative Party can't even hold on there, they are finished.

EDIT: to clarify, Sunak is not going to lose his seat. How many troops he has left at the end of all this, well, that's a different matter, of course.

WillG said:

ToryJim said:

bobbob said:

Why didn’t they dump fishy rishi after the locals? Need to go back to basics and talk common sense ! Nobody likes starmer people just want the Tory’s and rishi out !!

There’s no evidence that it would have improved anything. The Tories are in a mess because they’re spending more time settling niche ideological scores than doing the job they were elected to do.

Had they took the responsibility of replacing Boris seriously and not indulged their internal fantasies by choosing an absolute fruitloop instead of a serious politician they might be in a less perilous situation. Once Truss decided to fully commit to larping as a caricature Thatcherite it was over for the Tories, obviously they needed to bundle Truss out of office with maximum speed but they were never going to be forgiven for choosing her to start with.

Once Truss fucked up the Tories were done, regardless of which leader they picked next.