[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

rogersix · Mar 22, 2023

Rdodge30 said:
YouGov poll Feb 2023:

Do you think there is too much immigration in the UK

Yes: 56%

No: about 10% I think if memory serves

The rest made up of About Right and I don’t know

Sort of puts it in perspective when people on here claim anyone who is opposed to more immigration is a white racist.

that is an awfuly leading question tho, who came up with it?

pb21 · Mar 22, 2023

Rdodge30 said:
YouGov poll Feb 2023:

Do you think there is too much immigration in the UK

Yes: 56%

No: about 10% I think if memory serves

The rest made up of About Right and I don’t know

Sort of puts it in perspective when people on here claim anyone who is opposed to more immigration is a white racist.

That's 56%, not 52%.

The Clamp · Mar 22, 2023

rogersix said:
that is an awfuly leading question tho, who came up with it?

Quite.

Does it refer to the rate of immigration or the number of immigrants already here? If it’s rate of immigration, the result means that the majority of people polled are either happy with the rate of immigration or don’t know.

Rather disconcertingly vague. Aimed at those who don’t ask for many details, I’ll proffer.

Rdodge30 · Mar 22, 2023

The Clamp said:
Hmm, 56%

Rather similar figure to another grand opinion poll taken a few years ago.

Now, does it refer to the rate of immigration or the number of immigrants already here? If it’s rate of immigration that means that the majority of people polled are either happy with the rate of immigration or don’t know.

Details are important here.

Is there too much immigration in this country?

No 10%

If that doesn’t tell you what the general feeling is …?

If yes and no total 66% how can the rest be a majority?

Guinness Boy · Mar 22, 2023

Rdodge30 said:
Quite. My view is simply that he should have aggressively taken control of the narrative and would have benefited from it politically.

Instead he has simply commented on a Gary Lineker story. Not a disaster for the party but just a bit meh! The unnerving feeling I’m getting is that he has no clue what to do on immigration and for all that the election is 13/14 months away, I find that concerning.

Incidentally I follow betting on horseracing and politics - I restrict myself to about half a dozen football bets a year but follow horseracing religiously and politics intently.

Before Lineker week
Next GE betting:

Labour most seats: 1/6 odds on everywhere - no deviation amongst bookmakers

Conservative most seats: some 4/1 but almost all 7/2

After Lineker week
Next GE betting

Labour most seats: some 1/6 mostly 1/5 and 2/9 available with 2 firms

Conservative most seats: still 7/2 available but 3/1 mostly 14/5 in a place

Only small differences but noticeable if you’re looking. Poor week for Labour and I posted how I did because I just feel that these are golden opportunities, the Conservatives are constantly fumbling the ball and I want Starmer to take control of tge narrative.

I remember when Cameron won the leadership of the Tory party he almost immediately put together several policy working parties headed by senior Conservatives on individual policy areas. So by that measure I’m surprised that whatever the headline of the week be it NHS strikes Immigration or anything else that the Opposition front bench are not all out putting forward the 3point plans for the policies they intend to implement when they are in power.

To me they simply look like opposition not Government in waiting

I made a good few quid spread betting Johnson’s winning seat margin in 2019. A mate who’s a trader and Remainer called the Brexit vote as a narrow Leave win as a large misery hedge bet, in his trade positions and in an internal company competition.

The things both had in common is that they were laid days before the event (for the 2019 election mine went on the day before). Anything earlier would be madness.

There’s no point Labour acting like the government today or producing a manifesto today. Literally anything could happen between now and the next GE polling day and you call the finer points of policy based on everything you know. Today, Labour are merely the opposition and their job is to hold this rotten government’s feet to the fire.

KZNSeagull · Mar 22, 2023

Hugo Rune said:
You are making the mistake of assuming they have to prove he misled Parliament beyond all reasonable doubt, they don’t.

The simply need to consider, whether it is reasonable for the person who made the rules and read them out on TV etc to know them. The obvious answer is yes. He must have (like many times in his career before) lied. They don’t need a smoking gun.

He is toast.

Sorry, I don't think this is right. He has already admitted to misleading parliament. We know he lied. They have to find something that shows that he deliberately lied. Misleading parliament is not necessarily an offence in itself, deliberately doing it is. I didn't hear anything that shows that. They may get somewhere with the reckless bit hence the questioning about his reliance upon advisors and not impartial civil servants/lawyers but that is about it as far as I can see.
Really it was more an exercise in reminding everyone what a complete arse the man is and he may well be toast on the basis of that but I somehow doubt it.

Nobby · Mar 22, 2023

St Leonards Seagull said:
As a nurse we were still under social distancing guidelines in offices and they were pretty strict about it where I worked.
It was only in essential areas that distancing was not in place and PPE was a must.
I don’t seem to remember any leaving drinks either.
It’s great to think all the time we’re were being provided with inadequate PPE which the Tories and their mates were profiting out of, the considered it appropriate to get pissed up and party.
I can’t for one second understand where anyone thinks that would be ok and defend it.

Is it because they’re a little bit thick? Or just total bstds?

Machiavelli · Mar 22, 2023

Bodian said:
Yes. I think it more likely that they may find he 'recklessly' misled parliament. The final set of questions were all about 'why did you rely on a media adviser for your assurances, if you were taking 'due care' you should have asked a lawyerly adviser or a senior civil servant'. Harriet Harman said his assurances were flimsy - which I thought was quite telling of how they were thinking.

Agree with this.
It's extremely difficult to establish that x has intentionally misled parliament, short of them actually admitting it. Johnson wasn't going to do that.
If you watched the committee, they seemed to favour not going for the intentional approach and, for the reasons you indicate, instead pursued the reckless charge.

Rdodge30 · Mar 22, 2023

pb21 said:
That's 56%, not 52%.

Yes my mistake earlier

rogersix · Mar 22, 2023

Rdodge30 said:
Is there too much immigration in this country?

No 10%

If that doesn’t tell you what the general feeling is …?

If yes and no total 66% how can the rest be a majority?

what if the question was, to fill the 50,000 vacancies in the nhs, shall we increase immigration?

the result would be greatly affected, so how would that change policy?

you can see what i'm getting at?

Rdodge30 · Mar 22, 2023

Guinness Boy said:
made a good few quid spread betting Johnson’s winning seat margin in 2019. A mate who’s a trader and Remainer called the Brexit vote as a narrow Leave win as a large misery hedge bet, in his trade positions and in an internal company competition.

True enough

In 2015 I backed Conservative majority at 10/1 when hung parliament was Fav at something like 1/13on . Also beat the spread on SNP seats by going high even though the spread was high enough in the first place. The Liberals had fallen apart and in all the Southern/South western Liberal constituencies Conservatives were clear second so could win by doing nothing and with SNP destroying Labour in Scotland it was a good bet to make

Rdodge30 · Mar 22, 2023

rogersix said:
what if the question was, to fill the 50,000 vacancies in the nhs, shall we increase immigration?

the result would be greatly affected, so how would that change policy?

you can see what i'm getting at?

Yes a different poll with a different question could give a different answer

BadFish · Mar 22, 2023

The Clamp said:
Hmm, 56%

Rather similar figure to another opinion poll taken a few years ago.

Now, does it refer to the rate of immigration or the number of immigrants already here? If it’s rate of immigration, the result means that the majority of people polled are either happy with the rate of immigration or don’t know.

Details are important here.

I never understand people who won't post a link. Can't find the one he is referring to but this is close.

Do Brits think that immigration has been too high or low in the last 10 years?

Generally speaking, do you think the level of immigration into Britain over the last ten years has been too high, too low or about right?

yougov.co.uk

Easy 10 · Mar 22, 2023

I had most of it on in the background whilst WFH, listening to the greased piglet squealing his fat little snout off. The fop-haired c*nt even had a haircut for the occasion - no doubt to somehow come across as more "serious" today, rather than looking like he'd just woken up in a skip in Brixton after a heavy night out and dragged his arse to work.

His defence is about as robust as a bead curtain. YES he misled Parliament, but "not knowingly", because all of his expert advisers told him "yeah, all good boss" during the endless series of piss-ups at No10 that he either attended, or bafflingly claims he knew nothing about. In his own home.

He was the PM. Him and his civil servants drew up the COVID rules/guidelines (take your pick), whereupon he went on TV night after night dictating these rules for us to follow. The fact that he then needed a series of "advisors" to tell him whether or not they'd broken these rules is patently BOLLOCKS to anyone who hasn't recently had a full frontal lobotomy, or slopes around at Palace games clad head to foot in black.

He takes responsibility for nothing. Its always someone elses fault. He lies, obfuscates, waffles, blathers, bullshits, muddies the waters and takes us all for mugs. It was CLASSIC Johnson today as he bumbled his arse through that hearing, and it was frankly delicious to see him FINALLY get the forensic close examination and questioning on the total waffle he's been spewing out his whole career and getting away with.

The greased pig got skewered this afternoon. Now lets hope there are some serious consequences that proper fucks his political career, permanently.

beorhthelm · Mar 22, 2023

rogersix said:
what if the question was, to fill the 50,000 vacancies in the nhs, shall we increase immigration?

the result would be greatly affected, so how would that change policy?

you can see what i'm getting at?

now that's a leading question. framing the question to get response you want.

why not accept, even if you are in favour of immigration, that a large group are not? once accepted, we can ask why and challange the replies. ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away, while giving others a cause to champion.

rogersix · Mar 22, 2023

Rdodge30 said:
Yes a different poll with a different question could give a different answer

so the 52%/56% anomaly is totally meaningless, not a compelling arguement that should influence policy in any way

rogersix · Mar 22, 2023

beorhthelm said:
now that's a leading question. framing the question to get response you want.

why not accept, even if you are in favour of immigration, that a large group are not? once you accept this, we can ask why and challange the replies. ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away, while giving others a cause to champion.

either or neither, thems your options

Machiavelli · Mar 22, 2023

Easy 10 said:
I had most of it on in the background whilst WFH, listening to the greased piglet squealing his fat little snout off. The fop-haired c*nt even had a haircut for the occasion - no doubt to somehow come across as more "serious" today, rather than looking like he'd just woken up in a skip in Brixton after a heavy night out and dragged his arse to work.

His defence is about as robust as a bead curtain. YES he misled Parliament, but "not knowingly", because all of his expert advisers told him "yeah, all good boss" during the endless series of piss-ups at No10 that he either attended, or bafflingly claims he knew nothing about. In his own home.

He was the PM. Him and his civil servants drew up the COVID rules/guidelines (take your pick), whereupon he went on TV night after night dictating these rules for us to follow. The fact that he then needed a series of "advisors" to tell him whether or not they'd broken the rules is patently BOLLOCKS to anyone who hasn't recently had a full frontal lobotomy, or slopes around at Palace games clad head to foot in black.

He takes responsibility for nothing. Its always someone elses fault. He lies, obfuscates, waffles, blathers, bullshits, muddies the waters and takes us all for mugs. It was CLASSIC Johnson today as he bumbled his arse through that hearing, and it was frankly delicious to see him FINALLY get the forensic close examination and questioning on the total waffle he's been spewing out his whole career and getting away with.

The greased pig got skewered this afternoon. Now lets hope there are some serious consequences that proper fucks his political career.

You're fully behind his bid to return to Number 10 then.

Rdodge30 · Mar 22, 2023

rogersix said:
so the 52%/56% anomaly is totally meaningless, not a compelling arguement that should influence policy in any way

I was simply replying to someone who doesn’t accept the poll result as relevant by agreeing that if there was a poll with a different question the outcome could be different

I have already said that I think the poll I have quoted is significant - that’s why I quoted it.

For me it is a barometer of public opinion.

You will not ever see me on here posting the equivalent of “Yeah but” in relation to a YouGov poll simply because it does not represent my position.

rogersix · Mar 22, 2023

Rdodge30 said:
I was simply replying to someone who doesn’t accept the poll result as relevant by agreeing that if there was a poll with a different question the outcome could be different

I have already said that I think the poll I have quoted is significant - that’s why I quoted it.

For me it is a barometer of public opinion.

You will not ever see me on here posting the equivalent of “Yeah but” in relation to a YouGov poll simply because it does not represent my position.

i can't remember who own's yougov, but it's one of the disgraced, brexit cult, tory mp's;

i'ld suggest that is also a very significant piece of information when attempting to derive meaning from these polls

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Tofu eating wokerati

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Huge Member

Brain dead MUG SHEEP

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page