The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Indeed: the most successful countries (like Singapore) have well educated locals, with low skill immigrants.
However, for that to work you need to have the high skilled locals. And the UK has not done as great a job as it could have done in upskilling the domestic workforce.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Who was claiming it was preferable?
Well it's the implication from Bart's post, and all the "tightening up" from politicians that results in ratcheting up the income threshold for getting a visa.
A respected pollster has messaged me to say Matt Goodwin would be embarrassed to ask those questions that We Think have asked.
Here's an example.
'When it comes to the REFUGEE PROBLEM violence is sometimes the only means that citizens have to get the attention of British politicians.'
The pollster is telling the respondent that there is a problem. A good polling question should be neutral.
Some of the other questions are similarly loaded.
You will get a much different answer to the question 'Is it acceptable to commit violence against refugees?'
Update.
All the subsequent supplementaries are tainted because they ask about refugees but the earlier question has put in the mind of respondents that there is a refugee problem.
But do we know they asked them in this order?
It's not clear. The entire presentation is frustratingly opaque, given the incendiary results
This polling is so explosive they really need to put up their tables fast, and also the methodology
It really is like getting a blood pressure reading of 200/135. You need to find out immediately what's up, and also check the blood pressure monitor itself, in case it's kaput
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Who was claiming it was preferable?
Well it's the implication from Bart's post, and all the "tightening up" from politicians that results in ratcheting up the income threshold for getting a visa.
Just because something is permitted does not mean it is preferable. All things being equal, a high-skilled hire from the UK would be cheaper to employ than one from outside, given the costs associated with visas and relocation.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Who was claiming it was preferable?
Well it's the implication from Bart's post, and all the "tightening up" from politicians that results in ratcheting up the income threshold for getting a visa.
Menial jobs should be automated as much as possible. Where it can not be, then I have no objection to even the lowest skilled in this country getting a decent wage as even they are able to work in a demanded job.
Having extra people with skills unlocks new skilled jobs that can be done over and above that which could otherwise be done, its how you get economic growth.
The information coming out of Kursk is fragmentary and contradictory; unusually in a war that has seen fights over individual buildings, fields and spoil heaps argued over in detail. There is little official coming out of Ukraine, but much more out of Russia.
Over the last few days, Russia has apparently organised the evacuation of many settlements away from the presumed front lines. Which would make sense, except for the fact that Putin's regime has shown little interest in the wellbeing of its own people. Which makes me think that these evacuations are somewhat forced.
Does this mean that the front lines are further into Kursk that we assumed? Or that some Ukrainian forces are infiltrating that far in small numbers on missions? Or that Putin's regime has suddenly started caring for its people?
I doubt it's the latter.
I think it's easier to defend a place if you don't have to worry about your own civilians there. IIUC Ukraine changed their own law to make it easier to kick civilians out of areas that are under threat. The Russians don't know where Ukraine will attack next so I don't think evacuating a place implies that Ukraine are about to take it.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Indeed: the most successful countries (like Singapore) have well educated locals, with low skill immigrants.
However, for that to work you need to have the high skilled locals. And the UK has not done as great a job as it could have done in upskilling the domestic workforce.
So I think it's fair to argue that the immigration situation is a consequence of the twin British failures to educate its children and invest in productivity.
A respected pollster has messaged me to say Matt Goodwin would be embarrassed to ask those questions that We Think have asked.
Here's an example.
'When it comes to the REFUGEE PROBLEM violence is sometimes the only means that citizens have to get the attention of British politicians.'
The pollster is telling the respondent that there is a problem. A good polling question should be neutral.
Some of the other questions are similarly loaded.
You will get a much different answer to the question 'Is it acceptable to commit violence against refugees?'
Update.
All the subsequent supplementaries are tainted because they ask about refugees but the earlier question has put in the mind of respondents that there is a refugee problem.
But do we know they asked them in this order?
It's not clear. The entire presentation is frustratingly opaque, given the incendiary results
This polling is so explosive they really need to put up their tables fast, and also the methodology
It really is like getting a blood pressure reading of 200/135. You need to find out immediately what's up, and also check the blood pressure monitor itself, in case it's kaput
I am now intrigued to know who the customer for this poll is.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
Some of the highest leave votes were in areas of low immigration . And to be blunt the rioters weren’t doing so because they feared an influx of white European Christians ! The blunt fact is immigration from non white countries has tripled since Brexit. Leave voters own it and should have realized that immigration from the EU would just end up being replaced by the same from outside it.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Who was claiming it was preferable?
Well it's the implication from Bart's post, and all the "tightening up" from politicians that results in ratcheting up the income threshold for getting a visa.
Menial jobs should be automated as much as possible. Where it can not be, then I have no objection to even the lowest skilled in this country getting a decent wage as even they are able to work in a demanded job.
Having extra people with skills unlocks new skilled jobs that can be done over and above that which could otherwise be done, its how you get economic growth.
Yes, there's no reason restricting growth in high-skilled jobs simply because there aren't enough people in the UK with the necessary skill. As @rcs1000 mentioned above, the answer to this is increasing the level of education and training in the UK.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Indeed: the most successful countries (like Singapore) have well educated locals, with low skill immigrants.
However, for that to work you need to have the high skilled locals. And the UK has not done as great a job as it could have done in upskilling the domestic workforce.
The low-skilled immigrants will never be Singaporeans though.
So this seems to be the explanation/excuse for the reduction in gold medals:
UK Sport chair Katherine Grainger says Great Britain's success in Paris is "extraordinary", but Team GB have moved past the era of "winning at all costs".
The five-time Olympic medal winner says creating a positive environment for the athletes is just as important as finishing on the podium.
"It is about winning well, not winning at any cost," Grainger, who leads the body responsible for allocating funding to sports for each Olympic cycle.
Pretty atrocious attitude. It seems Team GB should move on from the era of Katherine Grainger - and fast.
British Rowing essentially told her (and her ilk) to do one. And brought back heavy end seat racing*. Hence the golds.
*The practise of swapping people in and out of the boat and in different positions to see if it goes faster. Considered fairly brutal since you can be dropped from the boat at any time, if someone makes the boat go faster.
Is her whoe job to dribble around making Team GB not win gold medals?
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
Some of the highest leave votes were in areas of low immigration . And to be blunt the rioters weren’t doing so because they feared an influx of white European Christians ! The blunt fact is immigration from non white countries has tripled since Brexit. Leave voters own it and should have realized that immigration from the EU would just end up being replaced by the same from outside it.
In the era of mass migration since the late 90s it has been overwhelming of non-EU origin throughout. The brief period after EU expansion when EU migration was relatively significant would have come to an end even without Brexit.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
It’s not need. It’s choices.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
We are saddled with our own thickos. We have a choice over importing more.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
Why didn't the country collapse before 1997 when we had very low levels of immigration?
Because we had a different demographic structure, with fewer old people and a greater pool of unemployed people of working age.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
Some of the highest leave votes were in areas of low immigration . And to be blunt the rioters weren’t doing so because they feared an influx of white European Christians ! The blunt fact is immigration from non white countries has tripled since Brexit. Leave voters own it and should have realized that immigration from the EU would just end up being replaced by the same from outside it.
In the era of mass migration since the late 90s it has been overwhelming of non-EU origin throughout. The brief period after EU expansion when EU migration was relatively significant would have come to an end even without Brexit.
So it’s even more tragic then that the UK left given those rates of EU immigration would have fallen.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Who was claiming it was preferable?
Well it's the implication from Bart's post, and all the "tightening up" from politicians that results in ratcheting up the income threshold for getting a visa.
Menial jobs should be automated as much as possible. Where it can not be, then I have no objection to even the lowest skilled in this country getting a decent wage as even they are able to work in a demanded job.
Having extra people with skills unlocks new skilled jobs that can be done over and above that which could otherwise be done, its how you get economic growth.
Yes, there's no reason restricting growth in high-skilled jobs simply because there aren't enough people in the UK with the necessary skill. As @rcs1000 mentioned above, the answer to this is increasing the level of education and training in the UK.
There's no finite supply of skilled jobs. Add extra skilled people into the country and we can create new skilled jobs over and above the skilled jobs that already exist.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
It’s not need. It’s choices.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
Choices, eh?
Im so old I can remember when the country aimed for a high wage high productivity economy.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Indeed: the most successful countries (like Singapore) have well educated locals, with low skill immigrants.
However, for that to work you need to have the high skilled locals. And the UK has not done as great a job as it could have done in upskilling the domestic workforce.
The low-skilled immigrants will never be Singaporeans though.
That's true, and indeed you could argue that Singapore, the Sandpit, and Switzerland are all places where it is relatively easy for the low skilled to get work visas, but that there are very limited paths to citizenship from this.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
It’s not need. It’s choices.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
Choices, eh?
Yep choices that create a low income economy where a few rich people get richer by abusing others anyway they can...
Sorry but I've spent all day confirming that a particular firm has been underpaying pensions for the past 5 years only to discover yes they are and 170+ different firms hadn't picked it up even though it's obvious on every single payslip (only 150,000 every year)..
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
It’s not need. It’s choices.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
Choices, eh?
We have an education system focused what proportion obtain 5 GSCE's. And a vastly academic curriculum. Allowing the brightest to coast. And writing off entirely those who won't come anywhere near, rather than equipping them with skills which would be useful and employable.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Indeed: the most successful countries (like Singapore) have well educated locals, with low skill immigrants.
However, for that to work you need to have the high skilled locals. And the UK has not done as great a job as it could have done in upskilling the domestic workforce.
The low-skilled immigrants will never be Singaporeans though.
That's true, and indeed you could argue that Singapore, the Sandpit, and Switzerland are all places where it is relatively easy for the low skilled to get work visas, but that there are very limited paths to citizenship from this.
Indeed. They’ll also deport you very quickly if you get in trouble or lose your job, and you can argue for your return from outside and at your own expense.
So this seems to be the explanation/excuse for the reduction in gold medals:
UK Sport chair Katherine Grainger says Great Britain's success in Paris is "extraordinary", but Team GB have moved past the era of "winning at all costs".
The five-time Olympic medal winner says creating a positive environment for the athletes is just as important as finishing on the podium.
"It is about winning well, not winning at any cost," Grainger, who leads the body responsible for allocating funding to sports for each Olympic cycle.
Pretty atrocious attitude. It seems Team GB should move on from the era of Katherine Grainger - and fast.
British Rowing essentially told her (and her ilk) to do one. And brought back heavy end seat racing*. Hence the golds.
*The practise of swapping people in and out of the boat and in different positions to see if it goes faster. Considered fairly brutal since you can be dropped from the boat at any time, if someone makes the boat go faster.
Is her whoe job to dribble around making Team GB not win gold medals?
Think DfE - her job is for team GB to win gold medals.
So this seems to be the explanation/excuse for the reduction in gold medals:
UK Sport chair Katherine Grainger says Great Britain's success in Paris is "extraordinary", but Team GB have moved past the era of "winning at all costs".
The five-time Olympic medal winner says creating a positive environment for the athletes is just as important as finishing on the podium.
"It is about winning well, not winning at any cost," Grainger, who leads the body responsible for allocating funding to sports for each Olympic cycle.
Pretty atrocious attitude. It seems Team GB should move on from the era of Katherine Grainger - and fast.
British Rowing essentially told her (and her ilk) to do one. And brought back heavy end seat racing*. Hence the golds.
*The practise of swapping people in and out of the boat and in different positions to see if it goes faster. Considered fairly brutal since you can be dropped from the boat at any time, if someone makes the boat go faster.
Is her whoe job to dribble around making Team GB not win gold medals?
Think DfE - her job is for team GB to win gold medals.
However….
We were fourth in the table, man! If we give 3 points for a Gold, 2 for a Silver, and 1 for a Bronze:
G S B Total points United States 120 88 42 250 China 120 54 24 198 France 48 52 22 122 Great Britain 42 44 29 115 Australia 54 38 16 108 Japan 60 24 13 97 Italy 36 26 15 77 Netherlands 45 14 12 71 Germany 36 26 8 70 South Korea 39 18 10 67 Canada 27 14 11 52 New Zealand 30 14 3 47 Hungary 18 14 6 38 Brazil 9 14 10 33 Spain 15 8 9 32 Uzbekistan 24 4 3 31 Iran 9 12 3 24 Sweden 12 8 3 23 Ukraine 9 10 4 23 Kenya 12 4 5 21
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Indeed: the most successful countries (like Singapore) have well educated locals, with low skill immigrants.
However, for that to work you need to have the high skilled locals. And the UK has not done as great a job as it could have done in upskilling the domestic workforce.
The low-skilled immigrants will never be Singaporeans though.
That's true, and indeed you could argue that Singapore, the Sandpit, and Switzerland are all places where it is relatively easy for the low skilled to get work visas, but that there are very limited paths to citizenship from this.
Indeed. They’ll also deport you very quickly if you get in trouble or lose your job, and you can argue for your return from outside and at your own expense.
But that required the Government to spend money on immigration services and for reasons unknown from 2015 onwards someone decided that an inefficient immigration service with few staff was cheaper than a lot of staff processing cases quickly.
It was almost like a department was split randomly in 2 with the legal side of immigration (processing cases) coming from a different budget to the budget used to house immigrates until they were approved, got right to remain and could start working.
A respected pollster has messaged me to say Matt Goodwin would be embarrassed to ask those questions that We Think have asked.
Here's an example.
'When it comes to the REFUGEE PROBLEM violence is sometimes the only means that citizens have to get the attention of British politicians.'
The pollster is telling the respondent that there is a problem. A good polling question should be neutral.
Some of the other questions are similarly loaded.
You will get a much different answer to the question 'Is it acceptable to commit violence against refugees?'
I concur that looks like a dodgy question, but some of the others do not
eg
"Hostility against refugees is sometimes justified, even if it ends up in violence"
If anything I'd say that is loaded somewhat against Agreement, as it sounds so awful. And yet 32% of people Agreed. I would have expected 3-5%
Also
"Xenophobic acts of violence are defensible, if they result in fewer refugees being settled in your town"
36% Agree
See my post at 9.09pm.
Here's a question that would be similarly shit.
'Do you think Nigel Farage racist rhetoric is responsible for the Farage Riots?'
And you make a fair point. We need to see the data and methodology, fast
The results are massively out of line with the recent YouGov and MoreInCommon polling which used neutral language.
In which case the WeThink polling is telling us something important- namely, that it's not difficult to swing polling on the subject according to how the questions are framed. And swing it to somewhere that few of us actually want to end up.
Which is something that the opportunistic right really ought to take on board before hitching a ride on this particular tiger.
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet you had no complaint about More In Common lumping together riots and protests.
Thing is, while adding "refugee" to "problem" is highly questionable, the word "refugee" is ALSO emotionally loaded by itself - eliciting sympathy. Refugee is a much more empathetic, huggable word compared to migrant, so you would expect it to get more positive scores: refugees are people that need help by definition. They seek refuge. A migrant is someone likely coming for a job, possibly your job
Wethink have dropped a bollock, they need to publish all their data ASAFP
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
Why didn't the country collapse before 1997 when we had very low levels of immigration?
We actually had quite a lot of low skilled immigration, particularly from the Indian subcontinent, it was just offset by emigration of people to the US, Australia and Canada.
It is darkly funny that this polling is so shocking even outright TwiX racists are saying "I'm shocked, even I wouldn't Agree with this"
Is this possibly the most rogue poll in history? Or should we remember OGH's dictum?
Oh bugger... I am sure we should remember OGH's dictum - but I've forgotten it.
A rogue poll is a poll you disagree with.
A dodgy poll is a different thing to a rogue poll. A rogue poll is a poll from a normal pollster with an unexpected result.
If you've got a pollster without much of a track record and the parts you can see show they're asking dodgy questions then you should assume that the parts you can't see are also dodgy, for example the sample selection.
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
I never understood why students need to bring extended family. Equally this issue of extended family was much less of an issue whilst the UK was in the EU . For a number of reasons , one being simple geography.
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
"I want a world where Frank Junior and all the Frank Juniors can sit under a shade tree, breathe the air, swim in the ocean, and go into a 7-Eleven without an interpreter!"
More polls out that show Harris with a large lead in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. If she carries all 3, she should win the election. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
The vast majority of these are not doctors, they are working in carehomes etc.
Though, again, 81% of care workers are British.
If care homes want to attract more people, they should pay better wages.
I have every respect for wait staff, but its ridiculous that people wiping bums and taking care of people for a living pays less than eg waiting on tables does.
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
If you want qualified experienced doctors you need accept their family otherwise they won't come.
Equally if you want the £75,000 or so it costs a student to come to the UK to study for a degree there may be a quid pro quo involved.
Reading the papers over the weekend it does seem that many people are happy to pay £20,000+ to get a work permit in the UK, it's just a shame that the last Government wasn't bright enough to collect the money itself and instead like "agents" overseas pocket the money instead.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
I welcome migrants, but we don't NEED anyone, its a choice to have people or not. I'm in favour of the choice of welcoming people, but its not a problem if we don't.
We don't NEED migrants to wipe people's arses, that's a myth, 81% of people working in care are British citizens, the idea they're all migrants is a complete myth.
If we're going to welcome people to this country, and I think we should, we should be preferably welcoming more who are highly skilled over low skilled - but either way we need to build considerably more houses and other infrastructure too.
Just as a random question, but why is it better to have highly-skilled immigrants take high-paying jobs in the British economy while British-born people take the low-paid menial jobs to serve them coffee and pick their supermarket orders?
I don't see why that is preferable in particular.
Indeed: the most successful countries (like Singapore) have well educated locals, with low skill immigrants.
However, for that to work you need to have the high skilled locals. And the UK has not done as great a job as it could have done in upskilling the domestic workforce.
The low-skilled immigrants will never be Singaporeans though.
That's true, and indeed you could argue that Singapore, the Sandpit, and Switzerland are all places where it is relatively easy for the low skilled to get work visas, but that there are very limited paths to citizenship from this.
Indeed. They’ll also deport you very quickly if you get in trouble or lose your job, and you can argue for your return from outside and at your own expense.
(Although I would note that the marriage route to citizenship / permanent residence exists in those countries, and is more generous than in the UK, where it is hard to bring in foreign spouses.)
A respected pollster has messaged me to say Matt Goodwin would be embarrassed to ask those questions that We Think have asked.
Here's an example.
'When it comes to the REFUGEE PROBLEM violence is sometimes the only means that citizens have to get the attention of British politicians.'
The pollster is telling the respondent that there is a problem. A good polling question should be neutral.
Some of the other questions are similarly loaded.
You will get a much different answer to the question 'Is it acceptable to commit violence against refugees?'
I concur that looks like a dodgy question, but some of the others do not
eg
"Hostility against refugees is sometimes justified, even if it ends up in violence"
If anything I'd say that is loaded somewhat against Agreement, as it sounds so awful. And yet 32% of people Agreed. I would have expected 3-5%
Also
"Xenophobic acts of violence are defensible, if they result in fewer refugees being settled in your town"
36% Agree
See my post at 9.09pm.
Here's a question that would be similarly shit.
'Do you think Nigel Farage racist rhetoric is responsible for the Farage Riots?'
And you make a fair point. We need to see the data and methodology, fast
The results are massively out of line with the recent YouGov and MoreInCommon polling which used neutral language.
In which case the WeThink polling is telling us something important- namely, that it's not difficult to swing polling on the subject according to how the questions are framed. And swing it to somewhere that few of us actually want to end up.
Which is something that the opportunistic right really ought to take on board before hitching a ride on this particular tiger.
We know this from IndyRef polling. That's why Salmond was so smart with question, and Cameron not so on the EU ref.
It is darkly funny that this polling is so shocking even outright TwiX racists are saying "I'm shocked, even I wouldn't Agree with this"
Is this possibly the most rogue poll in history? Or should we remember OGH's dictum?
Oh bugger... I am sure we should remember OGH's dictum - but I've forgotten it.
A rogue poll is a poll you disagree with.
A dodgy poll is a different thing to a rogue poll. A rogue poll is a poll from a normal pollster with an unexpected result.
If you've got a pollster without much of a track record and the parts you can see show they're asking dodgy questions then you should assume that the parts you can't see are also dodgy, for example the sample selection.
Judging by Wethink's Tweets, the "leading question" - using the phrase "refugee problem" was NOT asked first (tho it is frustratingly difficult to be sure). However, as @Benpointer has noted, they have curiously deleted two crucial tweets on this point
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
The vast majority of these are not doctors, they are working in carehomes etc.
Working in a care home is within the capabilities of the vast majority of people. We should not be bringing people into the country to do routine work.
If a combination of low pay and over generous benefits means that not enough people want to do the work, then that needs sorting out.
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
If you want qualified experienced doctors you need accept their family otherwise they won't come.
Equally if you want the £75,000 or so it costs a student to come to the UK to study for a degree there may be a quid pro quo involved.
Reading the papers over the weekend it does seem that many people are happy to pay £20,000+ to get a work permit in the UK, it's just a shame that the last Government wasn't bright enough to collect the money itself and instead like "agents" overseas pocket the money instead.
if we want qualified experienced doctors we should train more and stop importing them
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
It’s not need. It’s choices.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
Choices, eh?
Im so old I can remember when the country aimed for a high wage high productivity economy.
That's never been more than a platitude. The politician is not yet born who would say the goal is a low wage low productivity economy.
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Regardless the poll makes for depressing reading . Wtf has happened to this country ?
Mass immigration happened.
Immigration from the wrong non EU countries happened . There’s a reluctance for many in the media to just say it out loud.
What precisely are the wrong non EU countries?
I'd take my Kenyan periodontist over a Romanian big issue seller. Even if she does hurt me. A lot.
BiB: Some people pay extra for that.
Christ I hope dental fetishes don't exist.
As we are way past the lagershed, and anything is more cheering than discussing THAT poll, yes there are dentist fetishes
When I first got into internet porn I discovered an entire niche dedicated to dominant lesbian dentists forcibly seducing their submissive dental assistants
Also, it was quite hot. Happily there was no dental work but they got quite creative with the chair
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
If you want qualified experienced doctors you need accept their family otherwise they won't come.
Equally if you want the £75,000 or so it costs a student to come to the UK to study for a degree there may be a quid pro quo involved.
Reading the papers over the weekend it does seem that many people are happy to pay £20,000+ to get a work permit in the UK, it's just a shame that the last Government wasn't bright enough to collect the money itself and instead like "agents" overseas pocket the money instead.
if we want qualified experienced doctors we should train more and stop importing them
Yep but that has a lead time of 10 years after a couple of years building new teaching hospitals.
So if you want more qualified UK doctors you can have them in circa 2035 or so...
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
It’s not need. It’s choices.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
Choices, eh?
Im so old I can remember when the country aimed for a high wage high productivity economy.
That's never been more than a platitude. The politician is not yet born who would say the goal is a low wage low productivity economy.
Not saying it, and not desiring/facilitating it are two completely different things.
Many people are explicitly opposed to growth - and consider it a right to have people willing to work for minimum wage.
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
If you want qualified experienced doctors you need accept their family otherwise they won't come.
Equally if you want the £75,000 or so it costs a student to come to the UK to study for a degree there may be a quid pro quo involved.
Reading the papers over the weekend it does seem that many people are happy to pay £20,000+ to get a work permit in the UK, it's just a shame that the last Government wasn't bright enough to collect the money itself and instead like "agents" overseas pocket the money instead.
if we want qualified experienced doctors we should train more and stop importing them
The problem is that our doctors have a habit heading off to Australia once they've been trained.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
It’s not need. It’s choices.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
Choices, eh?
Im so old I can remember when the country aimed for a high wage high productivity economy.
That's never been more than a platitude. The politician is not yet born who would say the goal is a low wage low productivity economy.
Why do they need to say it ? It's what they have produced.
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
If you want qualified experienced doctors you need accept their family otherwise they won't come.
Equally if you want the £75,000 or so it costs a student to come to the UK to study for a degree there may be a quid pro quo involved.
Reading the papers over the weekend it does seem that many people are happy to pay £20,000+ to get a work permit in the UK, it's just a shame that the last Government wasn't bright enough to collect the money itself and instead like "agents" overseas pocket the money instead.
if we want qualified experienced doctors we should train more and stop importing them
The problem is that our doctors have a habit heading off to Australia once they've been trained.
+ we seem far happier to accept doctors with a non white skin tone relative to Australia*
* were this not the case the doctors we have would be in Australia rather than the UK..
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
If you want qualified experienced doctors you need accept their family otherwise they won't come.
Equally if you want the £75,000 or so it costs a student to come to the UK to study for a degree there may be a quid pro quo involved.
Reading the papers over the weekend it does seem that many people are happy to pay £20,000+ to get a work permit in the UK, it's just a shame that the last Government wasn't bright enough to collect the money itself and instead like "agents" overseas pocket the money instead.
if we want qualified experienced doctors we should train more and stop importing them
The problem is that our doctors have a habit heading off to Australia once they've been trained.
A percentage of them do so you train above need and lock them in, that way you end up with more doctors.
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Regardless the poll makes for depressing reading . Wtf has happened to this country ?
Mass immigration happened.
Immigration from the wrong non EU countries happened . There’s a reluctance for many in the media to just say it out loud.
What precisely are the wrong non EU countries?
These recent riots are anti Muslim. And of course their ire is directed at those communities and by extension those coming on boats who they clump together as all being Muslim .
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Regardless the poll makes for depressing reading . Wtf has happened to this country ?
Mass immigration happened.
Immigration from the wrong non EU countries happened . There’s a reluctance for many in the media to just say it out loud.
What precisely are the wrong non EU countries?
These recent riots are anti Muslim. And of course their ire is directed at those communities and by extension those coming on boats who they clump together as all being Muslim .
So are you saying its better to import white Europeans than Muslims?
Personally I think we should treat all potential migrants equitably regardless of ethnicity, religion or country of origin - do you?
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Regardless the poll makes for depressing reading . Wtf has happened to this country ?
Mass immigration happened.
Immigration from the wrong non EU countries happened . There’s a reluctance for many in the media to just say it out loud.
What precisely are the wrong non EU countries?
These recent riots are anti Muslim. And of course their ire is directed at those communities and by extension those coming on boats who they clump together as all being Muslim .
At the moment those on the boats mostly are Muslim: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are the main sources, I believe
For a while there was a wave of Vietnamese but that seems to have stopped
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
Aaaaaand.. there we have it.
You disagree?
You think that someone answering that it is acceptable to use violence is not racist?
It doesn't mean they are racist at all in fact. If your governement won't do what the majority wants then you have two choices. Bullet box or ballot box. If the ballot box doesn't work then you only have the former option. Doesn't matter what the topic is...if you ignore a sizeable majority and what they ask of you sooner or later they will stop voting and start hitting
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Yet the British people think a reduction in immigration in health and social care s a bad thing. Even Conservative and Reform voters.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
We want doctors. Not the extended family of students.
If you want qualified experienced doctors you need accept their family otherwise they won't come.
Equally if you want the £75,000 or so it costs a student to come to the UK to study for a degree there may be a quid pro quo involved.
Reading the papers over the weekend it does seem that many people are happy to pay £20,000+ to get a work permit in the UK, it's just a shame that the last Government wasn't bright enough to collect the money itself and instead like "agents" overseas pocket the money instead.
if we want qualified experienced doctors we should train more and stop importing them
The problem is that our doctors have a habit heading off to Australia once they've been trained.
+ we seem far happier to accept doctors with a non white skin tone relative to Australia*
* were this not the case the doctors we have would be in Australia rather than the UK..
IIRC 90%+ of doctors trained in the NHS are still there 5 years later
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Regardless the poll makes for depressing reading . Wtf has happened to this country ?
Mass immigration happened.
Immigration from the wrong non EU countries happened . There’s a reluctance for many in the media to just say it out loud.
What precisely are the wrong non EU countries?
These recent riots are anti Muslim. And of course their ire is directed at those communities and by extension those coming on boats who they clump together as all being Muslim .
So are you saying its better to import white Europeans than Muslims?
Personally I think we should treat all potential migrants equitably regardless of ethnicity, religion or country of origin - do you?
I’m not saying that. I’m liberal on immigration as long as those coming are law abiding citizens. But I do understand that it’s becoming a very polarizing issue and governments need to act on it .
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Anyone who said yes to any of those questions is racist and quasi-fash and should be written off.
Aaaaaand.. there we have it.
You disagree?
You think that someone answering that it is acceptable to use violence is not racist?
It doesn't mean they are racist at all in fact. If your governement won't do what the majority wants then you have two choices. Bullet box or ballot box. If the ballot box doesn't work then you only have the former option. Doesn't matter what the topic is...if you ignore a sizeable majority and what they ask of you sooner or later they will stop voting and start hitting
And if they start hitting foreigners, or using bullets, then yes they are racists.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
It’s not need. It’s choices.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
Choices, eh?
Im so old I can remember when the country aimed for a high wage high productivity economy.
That's never been more than a platitude. The politician is not yet born who would say the goal is a low wage low productivity economy.
Why do they need to say it ? It's what they have produced.
You seemed to be saying there were some good old days when we aimed for the fabled "high wage high skill" economy as opposed to now where we don't.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
It’s not need. It’s choices.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
Choices, eh?
Im so old I can remember when the country aimed for a high wage high productivity economy.
That's never been more than a platitude. The politician is not yet born who would say the goal is a low wage low productivity economy.
Why do they need to say it ? It's what they have produced.
You seemed to be saying there were some good old days when we aimed for the fabled "high wage high skill" economy as opposed to now where we don't.
Yes.
Too many now consider pay rises a bad thing. That was not always the case.
The natural resonance of views like that should be between 8-15% of the population, max.
The fact it's now between 30-35% should be of grave concern to all, and an indication something is seriously wrong.
The most likely response is simply that a bigger proportion of the population simply gets written off as racist and quasi-fash, and everything continues precisely as before.
Before we make generalisations about the general population, what are the number for DKs/did not say?
Surely those are questions for which even 'don't know' should be an unacceptable response. I see no way to emiliorate or mitigate those numbers. The idea that a third of our citizens think it is acceptable to attack refugees to get the attention of polticians is mind blowing.
Can you not understand how it has happened? How we have reached this appalling state of affairs?
Britons have consistently voted for much much lower migration for decades, and it has never happened. No government has delivered it. The brexit vote itself was a cry of pain, from many, on this issue. And AGAIN it was ignored, indeed the stupid Tories TRIPLED immigration
All that plus the boats, and various integration problems, many of them horrendous
You and I both revile these answers, I cannot wrap my head around them, but they tell us we need - finally - to actually do what the public wants. Get migration down under 100,000. Stop the boats. We cannot wish this polling away with fainting fits
If you get migration down to under 100,000 then this country collapses. Do you not get this? The asylum seeker numbers are tiny compared to legal migration and the legal migration numbers are where they are because we NEED those people.
Whether they come from India or Poland, it doesn't matter. We NEED the immigration just to keep the country, and particularly our NHS and social care, running. If you want someone to wipe your arse in a decade when you are drooling in a bath chair then you, personally, NEED those immigrants. If you want someone to try and fix that alcohol raddled liver and deal with your terminal flatulance then you NEED those immigrants.
There are many things we and the politicians can do to improve integration - as I have said before, look at Norway - but we won't do them as long as we see immigration as a curse rather than a necessity and a benefit.
It’s not need. It’s choices.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
Choices, eh?
Im so old I can remember when the country aimed for a high wage high productivity economy.
That's never been more than a platitude. The politician is not yet born who would say the goal is a low wage low productivity economy.
Why do they need to say it ? It's what they have produced.
You seemed to be saying there were some good old days when we aimed for the fabled "high wage high skill" economy as opposed to now where we don't.
Yes.
Too many now consider pay rises a bad thing. That was not always the case.
Pay rises are a good thing if they are paid for by productivity increases. They are sharing the gains. But wage increases in the absence of increased productivity is simply inflationary. What troubles me at the moment is that productivity doesn't seem to feature in the public sector wage increases that are being handed out.
Based on this graphic We Think also appear to be conflating refugees with immigrants.
Regardless the poll makes for depressing reading . Wtf has happened to this country ?
Mass immigration happened.
Immigration from the wrong non EU countries happened . There’s a reluctance for many in the media to just say it out loud.
What precisely are the wrong non EU countries?
I'd take my Kenyan periodontist over a Romanian big issue seller. Even if she does hurt me. A lot.
BiB: Some people pay extra for that.
Christ I hope dental fetishes don't exist.
As we are way past the lagershed, and anything is more cheering than discussing THAT poll, yes there are dentist fetishes
When I first got into internet porn I discovered an entire niche dedicated to dominant lesbian dentists forcibly seducing their submissive dental assistants
Also, it was quite hot. Happily there was no dental work but they got quite creative with the chair
The "Little Shop of Horrors" movie (original and musical remake) have a scene with a submissive dental patient. The funniest is in the musical remake, with Steve Martin and Bill Murray.
Comments
However, for that to work you need to have the high skilled locals. And the UK has not done as great a job as it could have done in upskilling the domestic workforce.
It's not clear. The entire presentation is frustratingly opaque, given the incendiary results
This polling is so explosive they really need to put up their tables fast, and also the methodology
It really is like getting a blood pressure reading of 200/135. You need to find out immediately what's up, and also check the blood pressure monitor itself, in case it's kaput
Here's a question that would be similarly shit.
'Do you think Nigel Farage's racist rhetoric is responsible for the Farage Riots?'
Don't #BlockMusk Make @elonmusk British Prime Minister. He would sort our great country out for the better! And stop #TwoTierKeir #Musk4PM!
https://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1823069622499004861
Having extra people with skills unlocks new skilled jobs that can be done over and above that which could otherwise be done, its how you get economic growth.
80% of arse wipers in old age homes are U.K. born.
We chose not to educate 100% of the medical staff the NHS requires. The government mandates the number of places to educate and train doctors and nurses.
We chose to have an economy built on cheap labour. When, during COVID, the conditions in the Leicester garment trade were exposed, actual politicians said we can’t enforce health and safety or minimum wage without damaging the business.
We chose a taxation system that favours cheap labour over investment in productivity.
Choices, eh?
Is this possibly the most rogue poll in history? Or should we remember OGH's dictum?
Sorry but I've spent all day confirming that a particular firm has been underpaying pensions for the past 5 years only to discover yes they are and 170+ different firms hadn't picked it up even though it's obvious on every single payslip (only 150,000 every year)..
Allowing the brightest to coast.
And writing off entirely those who won't come anywhere near, rather than equipping them with skills which would be useful and employable.
To say that Britons are conflicted over immigration is an understatement.
However….
EXC: Bombshell video reveals @KemiBadenoch lobbied to lift migrant caps and then hailed her own success….
No comment tonight after 2018 boast emerges
https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/1823092992120656273
It was almost like a department was split randomly in 2 with the legal side of immigration (processing cases) coming from a different budget to the budget used to house immigrates until they were approved, got right to remain and could start working.
Which is something that the opportunistic right really ought to take on board before hitching a ride on this particular tiger.
Anyway, enough of this rogue poll...
Wethink have dropped a bollock, they need to publish all their data ASAFP
If you've got a pollster without much of a track record and the parts you can see show they're asking dodgy questions then you should assume that the parts you can't see are also dodgy, for example the sample selection.
Phillips P. OBrien
@PhillipsPOBrien
More polls out that show Harris with a large lead in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. If she carries all 3, she should win the election. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
If care homes want to attract more people, they should pay better wages.
I have every respect for wait staff, but its ridiculous that people wiping bums and taking care of people for a living pays less than eg waiting on tables does.
Equally if you want the £75,000 or so it costs a student to come to the UK to study for a degree there may be a quid pro quo involved.
Reading the papers over the weekend it does seem that many people are happy to pay £20,000+ to get a work permit in the UK, it's just a shame that the last Government wasn't bright enough to collect the money itself and instead like "agents" overseas pocket the money instead.
The main issue in the EU is not about FOM but immigration from outside the block.
If a combination of low pay and over generous benefits means that not enough people want to do the work, then that needs sorting out.
Nick Bryant
@NickBryantNY
“Her moment”
@TIME new cover
https://x.com/NickBryantNY/status/1822998713083822108
When I first got into internet porn I discovered an entire niche dedicated to dominant lesbian dentists forcibly seducing their submissive dental assistants
Also, it was quite hot. Happily there was no dental work but they got quite creative with the chair
So if you want more qualified UK doctors you can have them in circa 2035 or so...
Many people are explicitly opposed to growth - and consider it a right to have people willing to work for minimum wage.
* were this not the case the doctors we have would be in Australia rather than the UK..
Personally I think we should treat all potential migrants equitably regardless of ethnicity, religion or country of origin - do you?
For a while there was a wave of Vietnamese but that seems to have stopped
Seems high to me btw. I'd expect more like 15%.
Man of the Year is for good or ill, not for good.
Hitler was on the ill side of the spectrum.
Too many now consider pay rises a bad thing. That was not always the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB7R0ZxNgC4