Categories
Options
Hoist with his own petard – politicalbetting.com
Hoist with his own petard – politicalbetting.com
A couple of more observations from me on todays @IpsosUK / @britishfuture immigration polling and why I think it’s a problematic issue for Cons. 1/ We know it’s a highly salient issue for Con supporters /2019 Cons they’re really unhappy re boats / numbers pic.twitter.com/KaKGmAS9SM
0
Comments
And for a bit of hilarity, I woke up this morning to see the following twitter post:
"I fully acknowledge that I’m a moron but I still don’t understand how a bridge comes down and now the harbor is closed for months. The harbor didn’t come down. The bridge did. Do the ships need to sail under a bridge to function?"
Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular?
Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted?
It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like.
Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.
The questions are pretty unreliable. It’s quite difficult to disagree with the main Rwanda question.
Frame it another way: do you agree with Britain bolstering its workforce in entertainment, hospitality, and services by bringing in able and fit workers from other countries? …
… and you’ll get near 100% support.
On the one hand, the Tories are making a right old mess of it, and tactical opportunism says to point this out - Tories are overseeing huge net immigration, with a flagship policy that is (a) a gimmick that doesn’t address actual issues, (b) not working, and (c) even if it did work would be pissing a stream of money into hurricane-force headwinds. And *this is what the Tories are supposed to be strong on* (see also small business, home-owning, law and order, the economy etc.)
On the other hand, Labour voters tend to be more relaxed about migration and care more about welfare of people seeking asylum. And Starmer will inherit a big problem here that really needs a lot of time and money to resolve. So (a) it risks being offputting rhetoric to a lot of your voters, and (b) hostage to fortune.
On balance I think it’s probably not in Labour’s interest to turn this into an election issue. As the thread title implies, they probably don’t need to anyway.
The paradox of public opinion on immigration: people want it reduced overall but favour the status quo or rises for all professions.
https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1729458640942256537?
A lot of these opinion polls are unreliable. It’s what makes the voting intention one important, because it’s generally consistent and therefore gives a more reliable yardstick.
It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'
'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'
You do that by arguing that yes, we want net migration to be lower as a goal, but that the right's hardline measures to scare people off from coming here simply don't work. For a start, because as we've found out, in the short term certain sectors of the economy and public services rely on it - so all the hardline rhetoric in the world is empty - but that should change as far as is possible. And that students should be excluded from figures unless they stay permanently (a view that has public support).
On undocumented immigration (i.e. the boats) - a small proportion of the total but one that understandably gets backs up as is most disruptive. You can argue that a speedier, more efficient system and international deals that resolve cases quickly and fairly is both more humane - pleasing your liberals - and will reduce both numbers and disruption - pleasing your anti-immigration voters.
Easier said than done, obviously. But with the Tories being seen to have failed so utterly even numbers that would have once been seen as Labour being 'soft' on immigration could be quite easily said to represent major reductions.
The space is there for Labour to be both more liberal and humane than the Tories sound and yet comparatively deliver lower figures those sceptical of immigration desire. Which rather shows what a mess the Tories have made.
The Tories have set the bar so low on this issue that Labour ought to be able to clear it effortlessly.
Latest estimate from ONS says GDP declined by 0.3% in final quarter of 2023
Official figures have confirmed the UK economy went into recession at the end of last year, after the latest estimate found it had contracted in the last two quarters of 2023.
In a blow to the government’s economic standing, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the economy, measured by gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 0.3% in the last three months of the year, unrevised from an earlier estimate.
It followed contraction of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2023, confirming a technical recession – two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
As he prepares for a general election, Rishi Sunak has been seeking to reassure Tory MPs that the economy is turning around, after business surveys showed a recovery in private sector activity in the first few months of the year.
Some previous recessions have been revised away or downgraded to be less severe than first believed. The “double-dip” recession initially recorded by the ONS in 2011 during the tenure of chancellor George Osborne was eventually found not to have happened.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/blow-for-sunak-as-revised-figures-confirm-uk-did-go-into-recession-last-year
***Legendary modesty klaxon***
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/08/a-uk-recession-in-2022/
Doctor's entire family, no.
It’s a total cul de sac, created for itself by an incompetent and malevolent Government.
That is it... the tories are dog meat. And I guess with that the fantasy that something good might turn up by waiting is totally bunk.
Just have a GE already!!!!
Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be
The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.
And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.
Would that it were Miss Heather, would that it were.
(Robert Robinson mode off)
The Major government did hang on in desperation, and it was relatively quiet. There was Demon Eyes, sure, but the Faust PEB wasn't broadcast. There was an income tax cut, but only a penny, and public sector borrowing could sort of sustain that.
The current incumbents are desperate, probably more so, and much noisier with it. As Dom C said of Boris, they are apparently willing to try anything now they are cornered. Trouble is, they're rubbish so it's not working.
And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.
That's really quite disturbing.
Former Trump coup lawyer John Eastman and allies claim Satan behind efforts to hold him accountable
https://twitter.com/DiscoverFlux/status/1772780081481679211
It’s a waiting game now and it’s pointless. That’s all I meant.
p.s. Labour don’t need to do anything very much and they should definitely say nothing radical.
Economy in Q4 2023 confirmed at £566.6 billion… (ABMI official measure)
smaller than it was in Q1 2021 (£567bn. no net growth over two years, down 0.1%), and
Smaller than in Q4 2022, when the PM and Chancellor arrived in Downing Street (£568bn … down 0.3%)
Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser rebuked for breaking lobbying rule
Lord Geidt breached parliamentary rules by helping a US satellite firm influence MoD officials, the Lords standards commissioner has found
Boris Johnson’s former ethics adviser has apologised for breaching House of Lords rules by helping a US company influence Ministry of Defence officials.
Parliament’s standards watchdog said that Lord Geidt gave introductory remarks at a meeting in May 2021 between MoD officials and Theia Group.
At the time, he was employed as an adviser by the company, which specialises in satellites and aerospace. He was also the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, having been appointed by Johnson the previous month.
Geidt’s actions broke a ban on peers providing “parliamentary services” in return for payment, the Lords standards commissioner found after a three-month investigation.
The crossbench peer’s presence at the meeting counted as “assisting an outside organisation in influencing officials”, according to a report released by the commissioner on Tuesday.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ethics-adviser-geidt-lobbying-rule-bk62gbqh9
Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.
But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.
OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
It's just that with this shower, it would be entirely unnecessary.
There is no good way to spin that
And good morning, one at all!
* Hoping to goodness she isn’t indisposed which happened to me for Darcey Bussell’s swansong ROH appearance.
p.s. I’m such a socialist
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/triple-lock-increase-all-but-wiped-out-by-hunt-s-stealth-tax-raid/ar-BB1kFCQ0?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=380cc445895042b782d2554ac7f83ef4&ei=11
But not their mean, boozy party.
The guide is Starmer's 5 missions. You can't do those without being radical.
Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.
Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
Ring of Honour ?
I didn't know she was a wrestler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Honor
It’s all very well giving a few quid back but what really vexes many OAPs is whether or not they are going to be cared for medically
Unless you are B.R. we all know that the NHS has been in decline these past 14 years and it’s very worrying for those of pensionable age. (Not myself yet but I’ve seen the state of things.)
If visas were issued to the individual only, then of course it would put some people off from applying, but would result in a smaller total number, those coming would tend to be younger, therefore with a longer working life ahead of them.
What is this so called radical change you see people clamouring for ?
What's definitely a disaster is the sort of cheat sheet capitalism that the racier sorts of private equity do. Extracting shedloads of cash by financial rather than water engineering. The trouble for the rest of us is that the money extracted has long gone.
Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.
xx
And any increase will be eaten up, or drunk up, by the expected increase in wine prices!
Sunak calls an election in June - "the country must make its choice"
Sunak is ousted, and the new leader wants a good 6 months to get their "new" program going
Sunak "wins" but in the circumstances there is no win. A September election if he's lucky, July or August if he's not.
The question of when the election be is a question of how long the government can survive. I don't think the choice of date is in his gift any more.
If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.
That is completely unacceptable.
Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
(When was the optimal time for an election, if by optimal you mean 'leaving the Conservatives in the best state to recover'? I'd go for May 2023, after six months of assertive calm.)
He should have let Northern Rock and RBS go to the wall.
Some people need a harsh lesson in capitalism, companies go mammary glands up, the government shouldn't bail them out.
1) Trussism - radical rework of tax policy and money distribution to make it easier for the capitalists
2) Faragism - shut the border, migrants out, protectionism
3) Corbynism - more tax, more spending, massive investment
And that ignores the majority of the populace who think it would be a radical idea to go back to square one where we didn't pay massive water bills to swim in our own shit, the trains worked, you could see a doctor, they could work and afford to live, towns not visibly crumbling around them despite record taxes etc etc
I do give you credit for your "crisis, what crisis?" consistency. Must be lonely out there.
The choice of capital structure of the water company should be independent to bill levels. If the shareholders and bondholders chose a too highly leveraged structure, wipe out shareholders, junior bondholders and, if necessary, senior bondholders, until the capital structure is viable again.
No need to do anything for this really - just keep bills where they are and wait for the defaults to occur and administrators to be appointed.
Just as it would be say, bordering on criminal for a former chief executive of Ofwat to join Thames Water, but that didn't stop her.
Shareholders and bondholder take a risk. Let them lose the lot and a new company comes out of it. They have milked it in the good days, let them take the loss. Screw them,
And it is by some distance the worst performing of them on all these metrics.
One problem for those of us advocating mutualisation for water companies is that Dŵr Cymru is scarcely better than the privatised ones.
This should be such an easy thing to shut down. I think most people, myself included, will think if there was an error it was inadvertent and it was trivial yet most of the interview is taken up with the house sale issue and she is not able to get the message over about the launch of labours local govt manifesto.
And as a result so are our rivers.
We need a modern Parliamentary system that is better suited to making tough choices. Fptp has failed.
We need a closer relationship with Europe to stimulate trade and redress the damage of Brexit.
And taxation needs root and branch reform. Corporate and Individual.
Since Brexit we recruit from Egypt, Nigeria and India where people marry and have families younger, and bring them over.
I'm married to the daughter of an immigrant doctor who came over to the UK in the 1970s with his wife (a nurse) and their two small boys. Those boys are both doctors now themselves - one a GP in a deprived area of Leeds, the other a neonatal paediatrician in Nottingham. I reckon we're lucky to have them.
These clowns couldn't manage a whelk stall.
Gordon Brown is much maligned but did the right thing.
We make it laughably easy for foreign money to buy up boring utilities with a long term, predictable revenue stream, load it with debt, and rape the company.
Debt gives them the potential for two bites of the cherry. While the company is still relatively sound, they can lend to it themselves.
And they can (as Macquarie did), pay themselves healthy dividends while they run it.
When there's a period of low interest rates, refinance with a load more debt, and get out.
At least if government owns the utility and rips off the customers, the money stays in our economy. And they can be made to pay an electoral price.
Macquarie are entirely beyond any kind of reckoning.
As it was when a bank was finally let go, it was one of the larger ones with very serious consequences.
A significant number of people were willing to treat working across Europe as a kind of commute, especially if it was commuting on a weekly basis. Not for me personally, but I can see how it works.
If we're talking people moving from Africa or Asia, that doesn't really work. So of course people are more likely to see it as a permanent move and want to bring more (including family) with them.
Nice work, if your plan was to cut immigration, nice work.
But that doesn't mean we should bail them out.
Northern Rock was a fairly easy salvage job as it just needed an owner w its access to long term borrowing.
RBS ought definitely have been allowed to fail.
We define "beat an age gap" as "become PM as a result of winning most seats, while being older than the PM he or she is running against".
It hasn't happened since the introduction of universal adult suffrage. Has it ever happened at all?
Starmer is 18y older than Sunak and 13y older than Mordaunt. He's never been a minister, let alone prime minister. And yet people think he's going to win a landslide.
Smartarses beware: I know about XKCD cartoon 1122 from 2012 and vaguely recall there may have been a similar one in 2016.
Stop the BoatsRecord numbers crossing
Grow the economyEconomy in recession, smaller than when Richi took over.
Hold on, lads, it's working...
@lara_spirit
Labour lead at 19 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times
CON 21 (+2)
LAB 40 (-4)
LIB DEM 10 (+1)
REF UK 16 (+1)
GRN 8 (=)
Fieldwork 26 - 27 March
This is Reform's largest vote share so far
North: Tories 18, Reform 21
Midlands: Tories 21, Reform 21
If people meet the criteria we set, pay their taxes, don't get public funds then what's the problem with them coming here?
So long as we construct enough homes and other infrastructure investment to cope with population changes. The public infrastructure should come from those aforementioned taxes.
I actually think the approach the 2019 Conservatives purported to offer was a) moderately radical and b) moderately popular. (Less radical than the alternative, but more popular. And more popular than the unradical Conservatism of 2010 and 2015.) But the ideas were nebulous, there were relatively few in the party sincere about it - certainly not enough to overcome the inherent small c conservatism of the machinery of government, and in any case they were blindsided by covid and so impoverished the national coffers in the way they dealt with that that the best they could subsequently hope for was just-about-managing.
I feel this is one topic where the economic right (insofar as believing in free markets, reward and failure) and the economic left (should have stayed nationalised) agree with the principle that current owners and debtors should take the hit for their mistakes, not bill payers.
If you can't sell the assets to anyone because the bills don't cover the costs of providing the service, then the bills are going to need to rise, but that's a rather different issue.
They're not. They won't.
Hard cheese.