|
Post by alec on Jan 18, 2024 14:56:21 GMT
For those interested, a good article here setting out the pros and cons of far-UV light for preventing disease in indoor spaces - www.vox.com/the-highlight/23972651/ultraviolet-disinfection-germicide-far-uvThis is a technology which I think will in due course become pretty standard in many buildings, given that it lends itself to straightforward retro fitting and the data on the ozone problem is starting to look more positive as more trial results come in. The implications are really rather exciting. Apart from covid, every other airborne disease is in the firing line, including flu and RSV, but the biggest prize would be TB, which remains by some margin one of the world's worst disease killers. The difficulty here is that the countries most likely to be able to roll out UV systems are those with the lowest TB risks, but nonetheless, this looks like an excellent globally applicable solution to an awful lot of disease.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2024 14:57:13 GMT
, tey've picked a scheme that is extemely high cost per asyslum seeker, even if a few do get depeorted to Rwanda, ....and they have continues to big up the issue constantly. Putting the issue front and centre with a plan tat is almost designed to fail will, of courese, push some voters into the arms of Reform That's not the appropriate metric for the Rwanda scheme. Its purpose is as a deterrent to undocumented trafficked immigration . So the measure isn't cost per migrant deported. It is cost per migrant persuaded not to come by that route. You could say the ultimate objective is that there are no deportations because there is no one to deport. They all gave up. I make no comment on the likelihood of success. After declining post Brexit "immigration /asylum " is increasing in salience again-up to third most important issue :- yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-countryAnd that's not surprising because all our undocumented migrants have transited the continent , where it is a significant political issue in many other countries -Italy, Netherlands Germany, Denmark, Austria , Finland, Belgium .....:- www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/fortress-europe-where-will-the-migration-flashpoints-be-in-2024The EU Commission is pursuing new policies to address the issue -including rapid deportation. Poland's new PM Donald Tusk-a former President of the European Council has said "“Poland will not accept a single migrant under EU relocation scheme,” . So I think that accusations of "bigging it up" perhaps stem from a blindness to the pervasive concern about the issue across Europe. Actually Brits have a more positive attitude to migrants and migration than many other countries :- www.kcl.ac.uk/news/uk-attitudes-to-immigration-among-most-positive-internationally-1018742-pub01-115 And from what one can glean from surveys a migrant with a job to go to is perfectly acceptable. ( And I have the impression that specific pathways to asylum for Afghans, UKrainians and Hong Kongers met with public acceptance-indeed enthusiasm *) I don't know whether it is this issue which is causing Con to Reform VI. Immigration does not feature as a top four issue on their website :- www.reformparty.uk/And where it is mentioned-in the policy document - " Net Zero Migration", a policy completely disconnected to the economy and labour market requirements is the objective. Only around half the lost Con 2019 VI has gone to Reform. My guess is that there other issues at play in that particular vote change. So this isn't just a weird Tory obsession with which to lose a GE. Starmer will be just as pre-occupied with it. Indeed on Wednesday he raised it as his first PMQ question. He asked about 4000 undocumented migrants who had evaded government control. And he didn't tell Sunak to let them be and forget about them -he asked why Sunak hadn't found them. * I make no comment on the elephant in the room ( a room which includes the whole of the EU) -whether this tide of people washing up on the shores of Europe and wandering across it , should prompt new authorised pathways to asylum. You can see from Tusk's response that this is a very touchy subject. It will be touchy for Starmer too.
|
|
|
Post by davem on Jan 18, 2024 15:00:07 GMT
Not that novel, I have been canvassing for Labour for 50 years and I have always started with, “are there any local issues you would like to raise with me while I am here” Such as inadequate central government funding for schools, inadequate central government funding for care, inadequate central funding for roads, inadequate central funding for local housing, inadequate central government funding for libraries, inadequate central government funding to actually run local government? Yes they come up, as do local issues, such as the state of paths, reduced maintenance of parks and open spaces, blocked drains and so on. All politics is local and effected by austerity.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 18, 2024 15:00:24 GMT
The Guardian is reporting that the Lords timetable for considering the Ruanda Bill has been agreed with the Third Reading to occur on 12th March. Thereafter, we are likely to see 'ping pong' between the two chambers. It also suggests that at the end of the day the Lords will give way - rather than use its delaying power to push the decision beyond the GE. I don't understand the logic of the Lords having a 'Delaying power' which it is never prepared to use! It might as well not exist at all. The Salisbury convention does not arise here because the Bill failed to appear in the 2019 Tory manifesto - thus the Commons has no more legitimacy on this issue than the Lords Would it not also suit the Opposition parties to have a Constitutional clash on this if it prompts Sunak to call an election?
|
|
|
Post by davem on Jan 18, 2024 15:04:23 GMT
This is why the possibility of another leadership election in the Tory party is not impossible. If the right wing think their main candidates will lose their seats there is nothing to lose by having a vote of no confidence. The five I named are safe in reality, unless there really is a Canada style complete collapse which is unlikely. However the right wing supporters in the house are most vulnerable as it stands. So if they suffer anything like the 1997 result the one nation MP’s will be the majority and it is very likely that the hard right candidate would not be put to the membership.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2024 15:31:36 GMT
White tiger rides pink elephant. Yeah,thats how Trump became president. Because the mainstream parties made themselves so separated from real people. Con are busy doing that here, while lab lost several elections because it failed to justify its pro EU position (ie why membership was good for the UK), and because it has lost contact with its traditional base.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2024 15:34:09 GMT
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 18, 2024 15:46:18 GMT
The five I named are safe in reality, unless there really is a Canada style complete collapse which is unlikely. However the right wing supporters in the house are most vulnerable as it stands. So if they suffer anything like the 1997 result the one nation MP’s will be the majority and it is very likely that the hard right candidate would not be put to the membership. As far as I understand it, that isn't the case. There are candidates of all wings of the party in both vulnerable and safe seats so that the scale of the losses doesn't make too much difference to the balance. The right would lose people like Cates and Anderson, but Kruger, Braverman, Badenoch, Patel, etc. are all in safe seats, so plenty of potential right-wingers for the membership to rally behind. The most vulnerable of the potential leadership contenders is probably Penny Mordaunt (a relative moderate).
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 18, 2024 15:52:27 GMT
The Guardian is reporting that the Lords timetable for considering the Ruanda Bill has been agreed with the Third Reading to occur on 12th March. Thereafter, we are likely to see 'ping pong' between the two chambers. It also suggests that at the end of the day the Lords will give way - rather than use its delaying power to push the decision beyond the GE. I don't understand the logic of the Lords having a 'Delaying power' which it is never prepared to use! It might as well not exist at all. The Salisbury convention does not arise here because the Bill failed to appear in the 2019 Tory manifesto - thus the Commons has no more legitimacy on this issue than the Lords Would it not also suit the Opposition parties to have a Constitutional clash on this if it prompts Sunak to call an election? I have the impression that the Lords think that if they did block government policy it would finally prompt the HoC to pass some Lords reform, so they prefer not to push their luck.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 18, 2024 15:54:18 GMT
For those interested, a good article here setting out the pros and cons of far-UV light for preventing disease in indoor spaces - www.vox.com/the-highlight/23972651/ultraviolet-disinfection-germicide-far-uvThis is a technology which I think will in due course become pretty standard in many buildings, given that it lends itself to straightforward retro fitting and the data on the ozone problem is starting to look more positive as more trial results come in. The implications are really rather exciting. Apart from covid, every other airborne disease is in the firing line, including flu and RSV, but the biggest prize would be TB, which remains by some margin one of the world's worst disease killers. The difficulty here is that the countries most likely to be able to roll out UV systems are those with the lowest TB risks, but nonetheless, this looks like an excellent globally applicable solution to an awful lot of disease. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3797730/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5552051/
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jan 18, 2024 15:57:21 GMT
, tey've picked a scheme that is extemely high cost per asyslum seeker, even if a few do get depeorted to Rwanda, ....and they have continues to big up the issue constantly. Putting the issue front and centre with a plan tat is almost designed to fail will, of courese, push some voters into the arms of Reform That's not the appropriate metric for the Rwanda scheme. Its purpose is as a deterrent to undocumented trafficked immigration . So the measure isn't cost per migrant deported. It is cost per migrant persuaded not to come by that route. You could say the ultimate objective is that there are no deportations because there is no one to deport. They all gave up. I make no comment on the likelihood of success. -------------------------------------------- That in itself shows how seriously stupid the people who thought of the Rwanda scheme are. Everyone knows its taking around 200 people, if it ever worked. So, wait till200 have been taken to Rwanda then come over. Also, if your willing to risk life to make the journey in a dingy then being sent to Rwanda isn't going to deter you.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 18, 2024 15:58:25 GMT
The Guardian is reporting that the Lords timetable for considering the Ruanda Bill has been agreed with the Third Reading to occur on 12th March. Thereafter, we are likely to see 'ping pong' between the two chambers. It also suggests that at the end of the day the Lords will give way - rather than use its delaying power to push the decision beyond the GE. I don't understand the logic of the Lords having a 'Delaying power' which it is never prepared to use! It might as well not exist at all. The Salisbury convention does not arise here because the Bill failed to appear in the 2019 Tory manifesto - thus the Commons has no more legitimacy on this issue than the Lords Would it not also suit the Opposition parties to have a Constitutional clash on this if it prompts Sunak to call an election? I have the impression that the Lords think that if they did block government policy it would finally prompt the HoC to pass some Lords reform, so they prefer not to push their luck. There is not enough time remaining in this Parliament for the Government to be able to do that. It also begs the question as to what is the point of having a delaying power which the Lords will never use! If not on this issue, when would it ever be used?
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jan 18, 2024 16:02:49 GMT
Seriously funny. 30p Lee explanation of what happened last night in the voting. (Spanish with sub titles)
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 18, 2024 16:07:40 GMT
Should the Tories lose the next GE badly (which it may) people will have their own views about why.
I wonder if the narrative among many right wing Tories that failing to stop the boats (or at least failing to have flights leaving with asylum seekers to Rwanda) is diversionary, maybe subconsciously.
Bit like when Labour lose elections the left will say because we weren't left wing enough these right wingers would rather blame the above than Truss/Kwarteng' budget; or Johnson and partygate, Brexit not going that well or whatever that has damaged the Tories credibility.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 18, 2024 16:34:38 GMT
Ah yes, you got me. I should have said 20th century. Thomas-Symonds made that point too and I forgot to mention it. Wilson was youngest ever Cabinet member of the 20th century. I apologise to my readership for the factual error. I forgive you. Not sure about that shirt though Collars are in, Mr Monde. I thought you'd know that as a man of the world?
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 18, 2024 16:40:58 GMT
Should the Tories lose the next GE badly (which it may) people will have their own views about why. I wonder if the narrative among many right wing Tories that failing to stop the boats (or at least failing to have flights leaving with asylum seekers to Rwanda) is diversionary, maybe subconsciously. Bit like when Labour lose elections the left will say because we weren't left wing enough these right wingers would rather blame the above than Truss/Kwarteng' budget; or Johnson and partygate, Brexit not going that well or whatever that has damaged the Tories credibility. 1. How can they blame Johnson, Truss when they completely supported them? And still do, or at least Truss policies! Brexit is an absolute article of faith, It cannot be questioned or criticised. Has any policy held by any party reached such sacramental levels? If the facts suggest Briixt isn't working you redefine Brexit. You can never lose the argument. 2. A number of them have used a curious negative formulation. If the flights don't take off we will lose the next election. Maybe they think the policy won't happen. If it does & they lose? They will say: did not cut public sector enough, esp welfare, & failed to cut taxes. They can't really blame a divided partyt as they divided it. If they lose they are in a cleft stickm whatever the hell that is.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,314
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jan 18, 2024 16:54:14 GMT
colin Thanks for the poll, less than 40% of the electorate want to retain the policy or something similar and two thirds of both Labour and lib dems want to scrap it all together. But according to reality impaired Sunakered his gimmick is the "will of the people." This is what we described in the police service as " a lie".
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,055
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 18, 2024 17:00:49 GMT
Redfield Wilton blue wall
Blue Wall Westminster Voting Intention (17-18 Jan.):
Labour 31% (+1) Conservative 30% (+1) Liberal Democrat 24% (-2) Reform UK 11% (–) Green 2% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Which of the following do Blue Wall voters think would be the better PM for the UK? (17-18 January)
Keir Starmer 36% (+1) Rishi Sunak 36% (-4)
Changes +/- 4 Dec.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,055
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 18, 2024 17:04:51 GMT
This polling from YouGov shows just how unaware of the facts on immigration many voters are Just for the record around 95% of immigrants come here legally
Do Britons believe more migrants come to the UK legally or illegally?
All Britons More come illegally: 45% More come legally: 34% About the same: 8%
2019 Con voters More come illegally: 56% More come legally: 27% About the same: 8%
2019 Lab voters More come illegally: 33% More come legally: 44% About the same: 7%
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,055
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 18, 2024 17:07:46 GMT
The sleaze goes on and on
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jan 18, 2024 17:36:51 GMT
Lord Ashcroft poll, I haven't seen reported hereTory 27%, Labour 44%, LibDem 6%, Green 6%, Reform 10% But his methodology is weird, and most definitely not comparable with other pollsters Rather than ask them how they intended to vote, we asked how likely they currently thought they were to end up voting for each party on a 100-point scale. Looking at those who give one party a highest score of 50 or above out of 100So a voter who responded 49% Labour, 49% Lib Dem, 2% Reform would be treated as a Don't Know! I've always assumed that Ashcroft commissions polls to inform Con strategy (I think he may have said as much) and in that light the VI question makes sense. He's interested in how many voters are persuadable to the Tory cause and in who the competition for those votes is. That VI question gives him that information. Personally I'd have given respondents 6 points to distribute rather than 100, because I'm not a fan of spurious accuracy, but methodological nit-picking notwithstanding I think he got better value for his money than he would have done from yet another conventional VI question, which would have produced data much like the umpteen other VI polls conducted over the last 12, 18 however many months.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 18, 2024 18:03:34 GMT
This polling from YouGov shows just how unaware of the facts on immigration many voters are Just for the record around 95% of immigrants come here legally Do Britons believe more migrants come to the UK legally or illegally? All Britons More come illegally: 45% More come legally: 34% About the same: 8% 2019 Con voters More come illegally: 56% More come legally: 27% About the same: 8% 2019 Lab voters More come illegally: 33% More come legally: 44% About the same: 7% Depressing, but not surprising given the nature in which the subject is debated, reported and framed by our right-wing press and servile BBC.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 18, 2024 18:10:00 GMT
Theresa Coffey showing a level of ignorance only Lee Anderson could surpass. Love the little smirk by Cooper at the end Just shows what level the Tory part is at - its why you cant take their arguments, policies and supporters seriously. If they do get in again, collectively this country will deserve what it gets for being so stupid and voting for a bunch of inept, morally bankrupt charlatans.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 18, 2024 18:37:28 GMT
Rishi smashing it in the "Blue Wall", I see, according to the latest R&W poll.
Is this Wobbly Thursday for Starmer??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2024 19:54:49 GMT
Ah yes, you got me. I should have said 20th century. Thomas-Symonds made that point too and I forgot to mention it. Wilson was youngest ever Cabinet member of the 20th century. I apologise to my readership for the factual error. I forgive you. Not sure about that shirt though Collars are in, Mr Monde. I thought you'd know that as a man of the world? But that pair of collars is quite definitely out Battso. One of my big regrets occurred whilst in that London for my sixtieth birthday and I made a small visit to the bedsit that I shared with my brother Jon when he was at Drama College and I had just joined the Civil Service ( ). As I wandered up from High Street Ken towards Notting Hill I saw a Mercedes parked on a pavement by an antique shop. Two policemen (well, one was a woman) were booking my hero, Gazza, who was looking really sorry for himself. i was caught between desperately wanting to simply say “Thankyou for all the pleasure you’ve given me”* and feeling uneasy at interrupting the fuzz in the course of their duty and, within seconds, the moment was gone. I’ve always regretted that. (* Gazza, not the fuzz.)
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 18, 2024 20:00:16 GMT
Paul Waugh on why unrestricted overseas voting rights might be for Christmas but not for life
Yet the real story behind the Tory changes is not so much about electors, but about the way the law now allows overseas residents with tenuous links to the UK to donate huge sums of cash to British parties. That's because voter registration rights come with rights to make donations.
The legislation to expand the franchise could have been amended to restrict donations to those who had very recently lived in the UK. Instead, at a stroke, the Conservatives have guaranteed that a handful of wealthy individuals who choose to spend their whole life abroad can now bankroll their campaigning.
That in itself is perhaps as significant as the more high profile voter-ID rule changes. And it's why Labour may want to repeal this legislation even sooner than some suspect.
This is in his newsletter today so probably will appear in the i newspaper tomorrow. Originally expat voting was for five years after leaving the UK. Maggie increased it to 20 years then Blair cut it to 15. This increase to lifetime voting rights might not long outlast a change of government.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 18, 2024 20:15:50 GMT
Paul Waugh on why unrestricted overseas voting rights might be for Christmas but not for life Yet the real story behind the Tory changes is not so much about electors, but about the way the law now allows overseas residents with tenuous links to the UK to donate huge sums of cash to British parties. That's because voter registration rights come with rights to make donations. The legislation to expand the franchise could have been amended to restrict donations to those who had very recently lived in the UK. Instead, at a stroke, the Conservatives have guaranteed that a handful of wealthy individuals who choose to spend their whole life abroad can now bankroll their campaigning. That in itself is perhaps as significant as the more high profile voter-ID rule changes. And it's why Labour may want to repeal this legislation even sooner than some suspect. This is in his newsletter today so probably will appear in the i newspaper tomorrow. Originally expat voting was for five years after leaving the UK. Maggie increased it to 20 years then Blair cut it to 15. This increase to lifetime voting rights might not long outlast a change of government. Agree this is disgusting, but the ability of the mega-rich to buy political influence with unlimited donations could do with some legal restriction regardless of where they live. I don't see how any country that permits it can realistically be called a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 18, 2024 20:20:13 GMT
This polling from YouGov shows just how unaware of the facts on immigration many voters are Just for the record around 95% of immigrants come here legally Do Britons believe more migrants come to the UK legally or illegally? All Britons More come illegally: 45% More come legally: 34% About the same: 8% 2019 Con voters More come illegally: 56% More come legally: 27% About the same: 8% 2019 Lab voters More come illegally: 33% More come legally: 44% About the same: 7% It shows the power of irresponsible politicians and their client media in shaping public opinion.
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Jan 18, 2024 20:43:48 GMT
This polling from YouGov shows just how unaware of the facts on immigration many voters are Just for the record around 95% of immigrants come here legally Do Britons believe more migrants come to the UK legally or illegally? All Britons More come illegally: 45% More come legally: 34% About the same: 8% 2019 Con voters More come illegally: 56% More come legally: 27% About the same: 8% 2019 Lab voters More come illegally: 33% More come legally: 44% About the same: 7% Do they stay here legally? And is it legal to be admitted as a student and then to work full time in a take away? It just isnt a simple picture
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 18, 2024 21:05:59 GMT
This polling from YouGov shows just how unaware of the facts on immigration many voters are Just for the record around 95% of immigrants come here legally Do Britons believe more migrants come to the UK legally or illegally? All Britons More come illegally: 45% More come legally: 34% About the same: 8% 2019 Con voters More come illegally: 56% More come legally: 27% About the same: 8% 2019 Lab voters More come illegally: 33% More come legally: 44% About the same: 7% It shows the power of irresponsible politicians and their client media in shaping public opinion. I've always believed the political class should lead, not slavishly follow focus groups, chase the votes of a sliver of the public to maintain a 'base', seek the approval of a bat shit crazy print media and give out primitive dog whistles. Without a political class that was prepared to lead on principle we wouldn't have seen the huge post war social advances that occurred on both sides of the Atlantic. Of course leading requires courage, character and conviction, virtues utterly absent today from the right of centre parties here and in the US and those who do exhibit them are punished and hounded out by those lacking any of them at all.
|
|