|
|
Post by catmanjeff on Nov 21, 2021 8:25:05 GMT
There definitely seems to be a sea change over on the Mail Online. The "He's doing his best leave him alone" has disappeared to be replaced with "Boris must go". So far it's confined to Johnson himself and the sleazy Tories rather than the policies but that might change with HS2 and the care costs. Also the old "Sir Kneely Starmer" derogatory stuff has reduced but again that might reflect the sleaze issue and Starmer's undoubted probity. All depends now on what the Tories do with Johnson and whether the Labour front bench can capitalise on the situation. Be interesting to watch. Hi Barbara,
A change of government occurs when two things have happened:
1. The public lose trust in the government 2. The public believe another party offers something better
I think condition 1 is now met.
However, condition 2 has not, IMO. Unless Labour/Keir Starmer demonstrate they have ideas that the public view as credible solutions to today's problems, and have the front bench team to deliver it, they will just hold their noses and cling to nurse. The government majority would fall, and the turnout too probably.
Many times condition 1 has been met, much rarer condition 2.
That is the challenge for Labour
|
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Nov 21, 2021 8:34:02 GMT
Catmanjeff, I'm not sure it's the policies yet, though I do agree they have to be in place in good time for the next election. Up until now Labour and Starmer have struggled to get people to even give them a hearing. That has to be the first step. Once people are listening then the policies become crucial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 8:52:54 GMT
Sunday Torygraph polling piece on what could be CON's Achilles' Heel issue: Illegal immigration "Migrant crisis puts Tories in peril
Senior figures warn PM as poll shows 77pc of Conservative voters believe Government approach to Channel crossings is 'too soft'"
www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/11/20/migrant-crisis-puts-tories-peril/Includes some recent R&W polling as discussed on UKPR. The 'disapprove' % in Immigration being a large % of CON who think Boris is being 'too soft' highlighted in the new polling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 9:19:59 GMT
Catmanjeff, I'm not sure it's the policies yet, though I do agree they have to be in place in good time for the next election. Up until now Labour and Starmer have struggled to get people to even give them a hearing. That has to be the first step. Once people are listening then the policies become crucial. It is possibly a timing issue. Starmer looking to spend a period getting 'internal' issues sorted, hoping to establish party unity[1] and then moving to policy specific closer to GE'24? Boris+CON imploding along the way was perhaps also 'anticipated'? JIM JAM should comment as that might close to his view. However, people generally only listen if someone has something to say and hence I'll restate my 2c. Starmer-Reeves could just offer a few 'canapés' on issues that would put clear Red/Green water between LAB and CON and also unite LAB internally. The risk of saying nothing is that anyone who is listening has nothing to hear and might conclude Starmer-LAB 'under new management' have nothing to offer. No need for a detailed manifesto but just a few detailed policies beyond the current 'vague'. Into next year's Local Elections might be the time to start saying something and give folks a reason to vote 'for' LAB rather than just 'against' CON. PS Reeves could be LAB's Rishi. I'm no fan of Boris but if he keeps out of the way and stops the own goals then I don't see the need for a divisive CON leadership contest and Boris could recover his 'Heineken' appeal? Perhaps similar for LAB? Leave policy to Reeves and effectively she is in charge (a bit like letting your #11 take the penalty kicks and making the conversions  ) [1] Kicking the can on Corbyn issue is IMO a bad idea. If that flares back up into GE'24 then it will show LAB as divided and Starmer as weak. One for LAB folks to discuss but IMO, given Corbyn is unlikely to 'go quietly' then the least bad option post the botched assassination attempt is to give Corbyn back the whip and 'make peace' with the LAB-left. That might include agreeing to 'copy+paste' some parts of LAB'19 (or '17) manifesto policies but with something 'new' from Starmer-Reeves added as well. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 21, 2021 10:02:07 GMT
Pretty bad for Tories at the moment.
A lot is obviously sleaze allegations, but the cancelling of HS2 East and the very inequitable social care plans (where pensioners with less than £70k lose everything) is going to go down very badly in Northern marginals.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,682
|
Post by steve on Nov 21, 2021 10:15:55 GMT
TW
The term " illegal immigrant " has unfortunately become something of a racist dog whistle.
Many of those travelling across the channel that the home Secretary would be sanguine about turning around to drown aren't " illegal " if they are genuinely seeking asylum or refuge the method they enter a country isn't relevant under international law that the UK is a signatory to.
It would be clearly far easier and cheaper to get on a ferry or aircraft and enter the UK that way but UK border control prevents this.
This isn't to imply that all or even most of those entering the country by unlawful methods should be granted leave to remain but clearly their motivations are substantial to risk the method in the first place.
I agree with you regarding your comment about an element of Tory support wanting stricter or more draconian responses many but not all simply because of xenophobia but not sure that anyone should pander to these baser instincts.
|
|
|
|
Post by thexterminatingdalek on Nov 21, 2021 10:18:37 GMT
Further to Barbara's point, I'm not sure 2 is necessary if 1 is fully satisfied, at least to get into hung parliament territory. Cameron had no vision in 2010, just a tired government from which the wheels had fallen off. This appears to be the model on which Labour are basing their strategy and in the current fractured political climate it could go either way.
Things feel broken in a way they haven't for a long time, with the incompatibilities of Johnson's promises and personality exposed to daylight in a way they haven't during covid so far.
I always allow wishful thinking to cloud my predictions, but surely some of this has to stick. I still maintain Labour need a resurgent ukip equivalent to regain a polling lead, but that's not difficult to imagine, with brexit betrayal inevitable and Patel stirring up hostility towards immigrants, since Farage does it much better and can muster his followers safe in the knowledge he will never be called upon to do anything about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Nov 21, 2021 10:22:53 GMT
The Tories are in danger of getting into the position where many like a lot of their policies, but not the personnel and attitude of the party. In such circumstances Labour can even afford to duplicate some of those policies, rather than putting clear water of any colour between them and still gain people's votes because they're more trusted. Corbyn wasn't and isn't trusted by a large portion of the electorate but Starmer represents a less charismatic but more dependable option than either of the chief protagonists at GE19.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 21, 2021 10:24:59 GMT
One for LAB folks to discuss but IMO, given Corbyn is unlikely to 'go quietly' then the least bad option post the botched assassination attempt is to give Corbyn back the whip and 'make peace' with the LAB-left. No sign of Lab taking this option as the investigations and expulsions continue. You probably don't follow this very closely but there was a high profile expulsion yesterday of Pamela Fitzpatrick who is a Harrow councillor and this has gone down very badly with the left with people like McDonnell & Abbott tweeting support for her. I've never followed closely enough to know the personalities or the specific issue. The cases are usually shrouded in mystery partly because Labour rules say the only people you can speak to when being investigated or suspended are the Samaritans! On the face of it she has been kicked out for doing an interview with Socialist Appeal prior to it being proscribed which I doubt would have much weight in proper law. But I'm not to know the full background to any of the expulsions or even what, if any, is the final official reason for expelling someone was. Either way they are still going after people for rather tentative reasons. It is possible Corbyn will go quietly- I have no idea really but it's a big risk for Labour if he doesn't. I don't think too many people are aware of these expulsions (there's active left and then passive left who are left wing but don't pay much attention to internal Labour Party matters). It's not covered by the press but the passive left vote will be aware if Corbyn stands as an independent and that may flavour their voting preferences in other areas of the country not just Islington North. One thing about the Labour left MPs is (on a sample size of twice) they have always stuck with Labour rather than the Labour right who have split twice now (SDP/ChangeUK). 3 times if you add in 1931 (sort of!). If you take a look at McDonnell's twitter feed you'll find the responses when he tweets that something Labour has done is wrong are getting grumpier and grumpier that he's just tweeting and not actually "doing anything". It could simply be that Labour left MPs are Labour lifers either because of their position as an MP or because they only believe in the Labour Party and are loyal to the only party they think could change anything, whatever the shade of the leadership and/or know there is no future for a breakaway party like ChangeUK. Like ChangeUK many would be aware that they might lose their seats if they stood as independent or joined something like the Breakthrough Party (which now has two councillors from Lab defections). |
|
|
|
Post by thexterminatingdalek on Nov 21, 2021 10:37:25 GMT
Steve
I don't think hostility to the social care stuff will be restricted to the red wall. Even in the south, that's a huge chunk of inheritance older averagely wealthy Tory voters and their offspring are going to look at and see ebbing away, particularly once they notice the exclusions from the figure.
There were reasons previous governments avoided tackling this, not least because once you stick a figure on something, like student loans, it becomes relatable.
I don't know anyone to whom 86k wouldn't sound like a huge, frightening and unmanageable figure and can't imagine any political scenario in which this administration, with its constant U-turns and serial incompetence could make it stick. Especially since the backbenchers are still reeling from the fallout of the Paterson debacle.
Unlike the universal credit cut, this is a great big cannon pointing directly at their core demographic and most reliable voters when it comes to turning out on a wet and windy Thursday, and Johnson looks like he's fumbling around the back of it trying to read the instructions by lighted match.
|
|
|
|
Post by catmanjeff on Nov 21, 2021 10:38:36 GMT
Sunday Torygraph polling piece on what could be CON's Achilles' Heel issue: Illegal immigration "Migrant crisis puts Tories in peril
Senior figures warn PM as poll shows 77pc of Conservative voters believe Government approach to Channel crossings is 'too soft'"
www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/11/20/migrant-crisis-puts-tories-peril/Includes some recent R&W polling as discussed on UKPR. The 'disapprove' % in Immigration being a large % of CON who think Boris is being 'too soft' highlighted in the new polling. I think trying to stop 'illegal immigration' (quotation marks deliberate) is like the long term policy of stopping drugs by making them illegal - it doesn't work and becomes counter-productive. So politicians banging on about stopping 'illegal immigration' is road to eternally disappoint those who believe this fallacy is possible.
Better is a constructive policy that recognises reality and humanity. Current policy under Priti Patel is neither based on reality or humane.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 21, 2021 10:42:50 GMT
Starmer is probably quite happy with Corbyn where he is
He can magnanimously say we have room for him and his ilk in our party, but you can trust me never to let him anywhere near the levers of power.
The reactionary left can be fed red meat by more incendiary material from Ms Rayner, whilst the real business of political power sits with Reeves, Starmer and accolytes.
Johnson seems to be blundering to surrender to Labour the crown of integrity and probity. This must be very worrying for the serious players in Tory ranks, and is unlikely to be tolerated if he doesn't sort his $h** out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 11:07:57 GMT
I certainly don't follow LAB internal issues closely so very much appreciate your insight. I don't necessary disagree with what it appears Starmer is 'trying' to do (which seems to be 'purge' LAB of the Far-Left which in his view might be considered necessary to win back xLAB voters who moved to CON and grab marginal voters in the 'centre') BUT unless he conducts a much larger power grab then he is simply winding up likes of McDonnell and the Socialist Campaign Group (as you point out) Boris was able to 'purge' a divisive group of CON MPs that were making it impossible to govern into GE'19 but Starmer doesn't currently have those powers. Do you see any way Starmer can obtain those powers and totally purge LAB of the 'Left'? Even if he did then as you elude to that risks splitting LAB. Hence, I don't see how Starmer can 'win' (as in achieve total victory) the internal fight and hence why it is tactically better to 'make peace' (IMO). I appreciate the internal divisions within LAB run very deep but surely the #1 priority is to start winning GEs. We had the 'chuckle brothers' in NI and if McGuinness and Paisley can make peace then surely Starmer and Corbyn-McDonnell can (or at least give the impression they have, win GE'24 and then see what happens) |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Nov 21, 2021 11:10:43 GMT
The reactionary left can be fed red meat by more incendiary material from Ms Rayner, whilst the real business of political power sits with Reeves, Starmer and accolytes. I wonder if we can look upon Rayner as the John Prescott of the current Labour regime, keeping a lid on the far left etc? Reeves as Brown But an Alistair Campbell figure hasn't emerged yet to corral the Media. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,682
|
Post by steve on Nov 21, 2021 11:25:32 GMT
Sda
Of course the Alistair Campbell figure could be Alistair Campbell
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 21, 2021 11:26:47 GMT
I think barbara (hello) and jib both mentioned care costs, and I think this is a very good illustration of Conservative struggles. I also continued to be somewhat baffled by @tw's idea of Sunak as some kind of saviour. Rishi is the one causing Conservatives so many problems at the moment by squeezing the cash and undermining the promises, and I suspect his reputation will peel away in time. The care issue typifies everything that was wrong with the 2019 offer. We've seen this already over Brexit, but you can't promise everything for nothing. Something has to give. Northern red wallers are going to be hammered by this, and it's going to politically worse than the status quo because we will be able to watch our wealthier southern brethren walk away with the taxpayer funding. This brings us to catmanjeff's 'Condition 2', whereby Labour has to offer something and not just rely on Con mistakes. I think on care costs, we're at that point where Labour should return to their 2010 position. In effect, we now have a Conservative 'death tax' proposal. Voters pay a flat rate level of cost, beyond which the state pays. The difference is that because only those unfortunate to need care will have to pay the tax, the threshold for assistance is set at a very high level. Labour's proposal was that everyone pays a post mortem levy, but at a far far lower level, with the guarantee of free care if you need it. The Conservative plan does have a benefit that voters to take out private insurance plan to cover the costs, at a price with profit to the financial sector, but overall it's still in effect a death tax but a highly regressive one. These kinds of policies are going to be important to Labour, but the Conservatives are making it easy for them to develop eyecatching yet sensible ideas that can rally broad support. Conservatives central problem is that they need to keep the red and blue walls happy simultaneously. Lose either, and they are out, and we may in the end be watching a similar dynamic to Labour's Brexit woes, where they needed to rise two horses heading in different directions. For Labour, that was a deep yet temporary hole they fell into. For Conservatives, this has the appearance of being the permanent state for them, and I think over time they will struggle. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 11:28:23 GMT
I think Labour is doing the right thing about not having policies, and restricting their PR to the sleaze and government failures.
Whenever the elections would be (I guess 2023) the economic and social environment will be very different (I still think that we would have a recession by then, and the current labour market chaos would be structurally settled) and hence it would mean rewriting the policies (which is OK for a an acting government, but would be negative for the opposition).
As to the internal fights - in a way it is exaggerated for two reasons. One is that the Labour "left" (they are not left, but sounds like left) voters, in London, for example, often voted for other parties (Green mainly) mainly because the voting base is very single-issue oriented (obviously, the issues are numerous, but also isolated) as an ESRC-funded research demonstrated it about three years ago. So, it won't hurt Labour on the base line. The other reason is that here in the North (I talked to people who left the Labour Party in Liverpool and Manchester - so anecdotal) while many are angry and talking pretty rudely about the process (and praising those expelled) said that they would vote and would vote for Labour. So, again unlikely to affect the base line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 11:28:25 GMT
I posted some polling, by all means post additional polling. The 'illegal immigration' problem is far larger in places like France and Italy, see YG's Eurotrack polling that I used to periodically post on UKPR and the rise of parties like Lega and the even further Far-Right FdI in Italy or the range of options for next French president. In UK then I'll repost YG's most important issue tracker. Click on CON and you'll see 'Immigration' is 3rd most important issue at 42% (pick up to three) but way down the list for LAB and ABCON parties. The new polling I posted confirms the 'too soft' stance of CON VI (not that it was a surprise) yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country?crossBreak=conservativeThe reason I specifically mentioned 'illegal' was due my concerns that a lot of narrow minded people (at both extremes) don't differentiate between people who legally come to live and work in UK and those who don't (as the article I posted highlights then Patel will likely end up in the courts over the exact definition of 'legal' v 'illegal') FdI (Italy) are likely to be the largest party in Italy's next government. Macron will likely win French presidential election but he's aping the Far-Right so the options in France are Far-Right (lite) to Far-Right (full). I don't want to see UK politics go down that route and hence IMO it is better to control immigration, notably 'illegal immigration' rather than see the rise of the Far-Right and a more hostile view of all immigration in our country. The article highlights the risk. Now if RUK adopt that stance then due to FPTP that might split the 'Right' vote and indirectly help LAB out but as we've seen in our near neighbours that doesn't make the problem go away and if LAB want to win over CON'19 voters (many of whom perhaps 'lent' their vote to CON in GE'19) then I doubt he'll want to be seen as 'too soft'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 11:28:36 GMT
TW @"TW @"Reeves could be LAB's Rishi." Just reading about Reeves on the Prawn Cocktail offensive. Said to be impressing. She worked for Andrew Bailey at BoE !  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 11:40:31 GMT
"At the start of the pandemic just 13 per cent of people would rather protect the economy than limit the spread of the virus. By last week that was 36 per cent. At the same time, the number wanting to limit the spread has fallen from 74 per cent to 42 per cent. Despite weeks of headlines of NHS pressures, the gap between the two has shrunk since September. “As Europe brings in Covid restrictions and some argue for the UK to follow, the British public are responding with something of a shrug and are broadly content with the status quo,” said James Johnson, who carried out the polling for Kekst CNC." Sunday Times www.kekstcnc.com/insights/covid-19-opinion-tracker-edition-9 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 11:53:40 GMT
Some links for my 11:28am "French left in disarray as right, far right dominate presidential campaign"www.france24.com/en/france/20211026-french-left-faces-presidential-election-drubbing-as-right-far-right-make-all-the-runningYG's latest Eurotrack poll (see p21) where they asked about immigration then UK is the only country polled that sees immigration as net +ve (just at 4.9). France and Italy see immigration the most -ve (6.7 and 6.6). Polling companies don't split out 'legal' v 'illegal' but to use CMJ's analogy then a lot of folks might be OK with legalising cannabis and class B drugs but would want to keep class A drugs illegal. IMO most folks are intelligent enough to cope with the nuance of different types of drugs or immigration and to stretch the metaphor then I certainly don't want to see alcohol banned (prohibition) and actually think we should apply a bit more 'flex' into the 'point based (legal) immigration system' provided it doesn't deter UK businesses from investing in skills and automation to increase UK productivity. docs.cdn.yougov.com/8r4kwdzdlz/Eurotrack_Sep21_Topline_W.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 12:01:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 12:07:37 GMT
I don't know if anyone else shares with me, the sense of irony in reading that while British troops are despatched to the Polish Border to help keep migrants in Belarus rather than the EU ( a process involving a fence, water cannon and tear gas) ; French Police stand on the Channel beaches watching traffickers put migrants into rubber dinghies headed for UK. ?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 12:28:05 GMT
From "Glossary of Migration
IOM/UN
2019"
"undocumented migrant
A non‐national who enters or stays in a country without the appropriate documentation. Note: Migrants can find themselves as undocumented in one of the following two ways. First, they have documentation that acts as proof of identity but they do not have documentation that proves their right to enter and stay in the country, or such documentation is fraudulent or no longer valid. In this meaning, this expression is used as a synonym of “irregular migrant” (International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families ((adopted 18 December 1990, entered into force 1 July 2003) 2220 UNTS 3, Art. 5(b)). Secondly, they do not hold any form of documentation that proves their identity nor do they have any other proof of their right to enter and stay in the country. Undocumented migrants who lack any identity document usually experience more difficulties in accessing services, in obtaining permits to reside or work, or in returning to their countries of 223 UINTERNATIONAL MIGRATION LAW origin. Undocumented migrants may even, in the long term, be at risk of statelessness if it becomes immpossible for them to obtain any evidence of their nationality."
"undocumented migrant worker
A migrant who is not authorized to enter, to stay and to engage in a remunerated activity in the State of employment pursuant to the law of that State and to international agreements to which that State is a party. Source: Adapted from International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families ((adopted 18 December 1990, entered into force 1 July 2003) 2220 UNTS 3) Art. 5(b). Note: Also referred to as a migrant worker in an irregular situation."
"refugee (mandate)
A person who qualifies for the protection of the United Nations provided by the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in accordance with UNHCR’s Statute and, notably, subsequent General Assembly’s resolutions clarifying the scope of UNHCR’s competency, regardless of whether or not he or she is in a country that is a party to the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol – or a relevant regional refugee instrument – or whether or not he or she has been recognized by his or her host country as a refugee under either of these instruments. Source: Adapted from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (2011) HCR/1P/4/enG/Rev. 3, 7, para. 16."
"refugee (prima facie)
Persons recognized as refugees, by a State or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, on the basis of objective criteria related to the circumstances in their country of origin, which justify a presumption that they meet the criteria of the applicable refugee definition. Source: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Master Glossary of Terms (2006) p. 17. Note: “While refugee status must normally be determined on an individual basis, situations have also arisen in which entire groups have been displaced under circumstances indicating that members of the group could be considered individually as refugees. In such situations the need to provide assistance is often extremely urgent and it may not be possible for purely practical reasons to carry out an individual determination of refugee status for each member of the group. Recourse has therefore been had to so called ‘group determination’ of refugee status, whereby each member of the group is regarded prima facie (i.e. in the absence of evidence to the contrary) as a refugee” (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (2011) HCR/1P/4/ENG/Rev. 3, para. 44"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 12:31:17 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 12:37:46 GMT
The whole asylum seekers, migrant issue is really bad in Europe (and indeed government actions are closely linked to voting intentions). Last week a woman landed in Budapest from Central Africa and applied for asylum. She was handcuffed, put in a police car, driven to the border, and expelled to Serbia. A very large proportion of the Belarus migrants/asylum seekers were transported from Iraq by Russian leased flights (some via former Soviet Republics). It is not particularly well reported, but Turkey is regularly bombing the Kurd areas in Iraq. www.dw.com/en/the-route-from-iraq-to-belarus-how-are-migrants-getting-to-europe/a-59636629in France the three extreme right candidates all focus on migration (from Islamic countries), and indeed Macron has good chances. In Austria in the anti-lockdown demonstration yesterday there were both anti-migrant and anti-Semitic posters combined with Nazi symbols (the latter is illegal, so 19 were arrested), as @tw commented in Italy parties that advocate brutal treatment to asylum seekers rose in voting intentions. In Denmark there are discussions of bringing back some of the illegal legal actions (although they have some time until the next elections). So, even the inhumane proposals by Patel are less extreme. And there is no any sizeable internationalist party on the continent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 13:21:49 GMT
LASZLO
Thanks for the DW article.
What a story. I note Simon Coveney,'s cynical response on plane leasing contracts.
And when I read-as in the DW piece-of the enormous cost of these trips, I am confirmed in my view that those coming to Europe via Traffickers _( and travel agents according to DW !) are the middle class of their communities.
Where are the poor from those countries?-Stuck in economic poverty at home-or languishing in a UN Refugee camp
UNHCR says that in 2020 there were 82m individuals "internally " or "forcibly" displaced-including 26m refugees.
Sorry but I think the people buying flights to Minsk or Rubber boats to Dover are the lucky ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 13:22:39 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 13:24:15 GMT
BJ =Olly ? |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Nov 21, 2021 13:42:20 GMT
Afternoon all from a rather chilly PSRL.
Like some others, I'm not convinced cmj's second criteria has to be fully met in order to for an opposition party to dislodge the incumbent. Whilst they do need to come across as competent and credible, I don't think they need to cross the I's and dot the the 'T's on all a full draft of policies. To do so can often tempt disaster. Very few voters ever bother to read manifestos, and most political communication is done by signalling techniques. If Labour does have a problem its in the perception that some voters have that Labour has an identity crisis in relation to aspects of its so called traditional base. As I have posted before, personally I think its more that a certain group of voters lifestyles etc changed more than the Labour party did. For some former Labour voters its unlikely they will ever vote Labour again, but I that is probably the case for some former Tory voters as well.
As we all know, major parties are made up of coalition's, and can have deep divisions on certain topics. This does not necessarily stop them winning a GE/forming the govt (Tories in 2010 and 2015, 2017 on Europe). Its the extent to which the desire to win keeps this divisions in check that has an impact on electability of a party.
I am a bit puzzled by the opinion some have that if BJ becomes a liability electorally, all the Tories have to do is replace them and they are ensured of victory. Love him or loath him, BJ was able to do what May was unable to and flip those red wall seats. Not sure if any of his possible replacements have his pull. I very much doubt Dishy Rishi would actually appeal to the voters BJ was able to get - and I hate to say it but I do think race would be a factor in a number of ways if he was the successor. On balance, and it really shouldn't and really wish it wouldn't, I think it would work against the Tories in a GE. The other possible heirs, Truss and Raab really are second rate and dont have any of BJ's appeal.
In all probability, BJ and his government will ride out the storm over the next 12-18 months and win the next GE (most likely with a fairly large reduction in OM - caveats on major world changing events etc).
|
|
) 
