Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Immigration might be the most important issue facing the co
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Immigration might be the most important issue facing the country but it isn’t the only issue
We see in the Ipsos Mori issues index (and in other polling) on a regular and consistent basis immigration/immigrants as the most important issue facing the UK yet if immigration/immigrants really was the most important issue then UKIP would have picked up more than one seat in May as David Cameron’s spectacular failure to cut net immigration in the last parliament would have damaged the T…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Don't forget that Guardian survery showing that around 30% of people would voter kipper if they thought they could win in their area, probably rather less now! Electorally speaking (not I agree in the referendum) the kippers problem is credibility, and people believing they can win in their seat.
... and first!
No I wouldn't. The EU as managed by Brussels is not aligned with my take on the best economic or political or judicial or social or commercial interests of the people of the UK.
So if I wouldn't join it today, are there any compelling reasons to follow the logical step - and to LEAVE now I have a chance? REMAIN are not making any case to address that argument, other than scare stories that insult my intelligence. And Cameron looks to be getting a deal far short of creating an EU I would want to join if we weren't already in.
Cheers TSE - agree entirely that the Leave campaign should be about more than any one single issue and although immigration is a concern for a great many people, for me personally it falls way below protecting the future of British Sovereignty and all that that entails. - Can UKIP change it's spots? this morning’s thread should give a good indication.
If our politicians, diplomats and civil servants can't find a way to implement the will of the people in a Referendum, then they should resign. Or be sacked.
And there are no more important problems to solve than having the fullest range of tools possible to decide how our nation wishes to address the problems it faces.
A bit like when I have to leave the pub early on a friday night for so many years.
Due to having to work on a Saturday.
Most people are not shift workers.
They are Monday to Friday in a routine and they would not want to change that.
The leave variety are in the main mavericks and seen as a risk.
They need a boring 9 to 5 type, like the current foreign secretary Phillip Hammond to reassure them, that leave will be ok.
We should be looking at the EU that cannot stand democracy and the will of the people, an EU that can only ever propose more centralisation as an answer to a problem, and an EU that's not been able to get its accounts past an audit for two decades. Why would we ever want to join that EU if we weren't already members?
The 1975 Common Market was very different to what we have now. I would have been in favour then but against now, and becoming more so with their attitude to both Greece and the refugee problem in the past 12 months.
The EU structures have no formal Opposition, no way of holding them to account on a daily basis, and certainly no way of kicking them out at the ballot box if we decide as the people that they've gone too far. Even those we elect are chosen from party lists, so even if we wanted to get rid of a Hannan or Farage we can't anyway.
That's not democracy, it's autocracy and makes the EU no different to China or Russia in their attitude to those who pay taxes.
Good piece, Mr. Eagles.
I'm not sure I agree with the PFJ and JPF comparison. Seems like Vote Leave have their heads screwed on right, and leave.eu is essentially UKIP.
Neither side seems to think at all about what undecided voters think, what their concerns are and what might make up their minds.
And with good reason. In 2012 " the audit found that £89 billion of European spending was “affected by material error”...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10306461/EU-auditors-must-tone-down-criticism-of-Brussels-spending-says-Herman-Van-Rompuy.html
I'm getting bored already with the Referendum debate. I shall vote Leave because of 1975 but I think Mr Dodd is correct. In the end, we can influence Westminster. We can't influence Brussels. That is the point that Leave must make.
The EU intends to federalise but they're proceeding on the basis of "softly, softly, catchee monkee." It worked in 1975, it may work now. Most voters won't remember forty years ago.
And my first birthday post of the day!
"When did you last influence Westminster? How could you tell?"
Individually ... never. As a voting bloc, sometimes - I'm a pensioner.
I suspect Remain will win because of inertia. When it's as "tedious to wade back as go o'er", the status quo wins.
The choice should be between make our own mistakes vs allow Europe to make our mistakes.
Happy birthday!
Perhaps a better reform would be to require each Parliamentary candidate to be nominated by at least one expat
TSE is right. Banging on about immigration and sounding like Farage after a well lubricated lunch is the BOOers mistake. Particularly as some want to stay in the EEA with free movement, and generally it is non-EU immigration that is seen as a threat to the social cohesion of the UK.
Glad to see another youthful PBer :-)
That's the battleground. Whether the fight i with facts or FUD, that's where the referendum will be won and lost.
Oh, and happy birthday Plato.
Immigration is obviously going to be one of the messages.
Then they should do one on money, as that reaches voters that immigration won't.
Then finally I guess they should do a Fear one based on how the EU is going to change as it integrates. I'm not really sure how they'd pitch that, though.
Edit: Maybe that last one is too hard to get across and they should do Hope instead. Not sure what, but optimism is easy to combine with patriotism.
I seem to recall that tim ... late of this parish.... who was seen as some form of betting guru , regularly stated that the leadership satisfaction stats were meaningless in terms of GE outcomes and I think OGH too..
It doesn't say much for the polling companies anyway.. I think I could hazard a guess that that the Tories would be about 8-10 % ahead without any form of complicated polling.. You just need to ask those you come into contact with on a daily basis what they think of Corbyn.. Most of it is unrepeatable in polite company....
Unless something dramatic happens to alter events. Corbyn will never be Prime Minister nor anyone from his hard left acolytes. Its a pity there is no real opposition to the Govt.. That's what will do for the Tories in the end but it might take 20 yrs when Corbymannia and Jezboolah are long forgotten.
This despite the PM promising to reduce numbers to tens of thousands. The Tories won primarily because of Miliband and SNP, there were other contributory factors but none as significant. If the Inners start playing the race card it will backfire, people are sick of it, it happens on here all the time.
There is undoubtedly a sizeable % of the population concerned with immigration that link it with Paris etc, whether or not they associate that with the EU I don't know. There are endless discussions on here about the EU, immigration is barely mentioned.
My point is if IN make this a party campaign they're misjudging the electorate, tribalists assume everybody else feels the same.
Happy birthday Sadly knowing history does not in fact prevent people from repeating it. Human nature can still lead us down the same paths.
Would we be happy with an independent Germany or France pursuing their strict national interest without reference to us or anyone else?
To a lesser extent 2015 voting for the government to continue (just nobody felt like voting for the yellow part of the government).
volcanopete's comments on rigging the system on the last thread echoed in greater detail by Rawnsley here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/20/tories-unstitching-tapestry-of-democracy
On topic, successful parties need not so much a vast range of policies as about 3 main themes which cut through to voter attention as important and relevant. At present, for the only vaguely interested voter, Tories=economy, Labour=NHS, UKIP=immigration, SNP=Scotland's interests, LibDems=er, not sure. It's easy to see why English floating voters picked Tories and Scots picked SNP from those - they are more fundamental to most people's everyday lives. (The danger for them is that they are at some point perceived to mess up the economy or Scotland respectively.)
For UKIP merely to announce that they have a new housing policy, say, won't do anything, any more han EdM's disjointed announcements on electricity etc. did much for us. Crime and conservative social values seem the best fit for them.
Remain and Leave both have the problem that EU membership doesn't seem very salient for most voters either way, and they discount the more extreme claims about zillions of unemployed or surrendering all power to Bulgaria. In the absence of clear reasons to withdraw, Remain should have the edge, but they need to beware of low turnout.
The EU/Eurozone will continue to move to ever closer union - its the logical consequence of a single currency, but as stated we will not join the Euro and will not be part of that. So the point of these negotiations is to recast our position in that light. If that position is not satisfactory we can vote to leave. But there will be little difference in being in the EEA to being in the EU as we are now.
Labour need to be careful here: it's more obvious than they seem to realise that removing a bias is not introducing a bias.
And even if that weren't the case, the Euro will hold its members together.
If the HOL wont stick to convention , then they must be made to. Simples.
That said, if the totality of the reasonable changes is such that the Tories gain a clear advantage as a result, perception might be that they are as a package unfair somehow.
The HOL proposals do seem entirely motivated by partisan advantage given the lack of intention to do anything about it until it caused trouble, which makes the changes suspect - at least the Union stuff and the reduction in seats numbers and so on were trailed for a long time and considered.
We are not in the Euro. We are not in Schengen. We are already semi detached. We do need a new relationship with the EU as the Eurozone evolves closer. The rabid leavers want to ignore it altogether. We cannot do that --- a single block on our doorstep of over 400 million?? Where will all the EU inward investment go? Will we still get our (currently large) share? Who can guarantee that? Who can guarantee that Nissan will not inevitably end up in say Bulgaria?
No one can.
But if we leave and stay in the EEA. Probably we can continue. But it will be very little different to now. The hysteria hyped up is all over a very small change.
Unless it was clear we could and would move to an EEA relationship then I would not vote Leave. Any campaign to suggest we do not even join the EEA would simply be an offer to buy an even bigger pig in a poke.
What more could one ask?
(should appeal to the Star Trek fans me thinks)
Now whether that could be trusted is another matter, since a future PM could just hand it away like Mrs T handbag. However I can see the less cynical being swayed by that sort of thing.
Under labour the Tories opposed the min wage now they're introducing a living wage.
I have my principles and if you don't like them I have some more.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"