borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Aug 29, 2024 22:03:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 31, 2024 8:00:20 GMT
It is depressing that you wish to do this yet again. There are many sensible arguments to be had in respect of asylum policy. The fact that people claiming asylum are not obliged to claim that asylum in the first safe country they reach is not one of them. Worth a read of section 3 here researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9724/CBP-9724.pdf UK Law is clear: have passed through a safe country then not accepted as a refugee The UN say the UN Convention is clear that that's not true. I find it a hard read with all that 'As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951' stuff www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees The common sense position is that in general someone in France is not in real fear of true persecution there and their reason to try to get to the UK is more than likely economic so they have no moral claim to asylum in the UK. I go with the common sense position. My understanding is that if they have not been offered refuge, it matters not if the country is safe or not.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 31, 2024 8:06:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Aug 31, 2024 9:32:02 GMT
Doesn't that climb reflect a recent increasing level of unpopularity?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 31, 2024 11:21:34 GMT
Doesn't that climb reflect a recent increasing level of unpopularity? Yes, that's why I said climbing back up
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Aug 31, 2024 11:42:02 GMT
Doesn't that climb reflect a recent increasing level of unpopularity? Yes, that's why I said climbing back up I see, you were agreeing with Borg - my misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 31, 2024 12:52:52 GMT
Yes, that's why I said climbing back up I see, you were agreeing with Borg - my misunderstanding. Where did Borg say they were recovering? I missed that.
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Aug 31, 2024 12:56:44 GMT
I see, you were agreeing with Borg - my misunderstanding. Where did Borg say they were recovering? I missed that. He didn't, and unless I am misreading the graph, the Labour government is becoming increasingly unpopular.
That's why I asked the question.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 31, 2024 13:43:48 GMT
Where did Borg say they were recovering? I missed that. He didn't, and unless I am misreading the graph, the Labour government is becoming increasingly unpopular.
That's why I asked the question.
The graph shows them steady at around 60 to70% through the last year then dropping like a stone to 29% on the 29th July and climbing rapidly back up to 51% on the 26th August.
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Aug 31, 2024 15:00:46 GMT
He didn't, and unless I am misreading the graph, the Labour government is becoming increasingly unpopular.
That's why I asked the question.
The graph shows them steady at around 60 to70% through the last year then dropping like a stone to 29% on the 29th July and climbing rapidly back up to 51% on the 26th August. The graph is Government approval and the figures from the red line represent disapproval.
On 1 July the Conservatives were in Government and had a disapproval rating of 73%. The next reading I see is on 22 July when the new Labour government has a disapproval rating of 32%. That disapproval rating then increases to 51% on 26 August.
I think you're reading the increase in disapproval as a recovery.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 31, 2024 15:24:02 GMT
The graph shows them steady at around 60 to70% through the last year then dropping like a stone to 29% on the 29th July and climbing rapidly back up to 51% on the 26th August. The graph is Government approval and the figures from the red line represent disapproval.
On 1 July the Conservatives were in Government and had a disapproval rating of 73%. The next reading I see is on 22 July when the new Labour government has a disapproval rating of 32%. That disapproval rating then increases to 51% on 26 August.
I think you're reading the increase in disapproval as a recovery.
Oops yes. Apologies
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 31, 2024 15:37:26 GMT
So starting again. Average government approval around 30% over the years
All time low Oct 2023 at 8% July 2024 23% Peaking 29% at the start of August Fallen back to 23% latest.
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Aug 31, 2024 15:52:35 GMT
So starting again. Average government approval around 30% over the years All time low Oct 2023 at 8% July 2024 23% Peaking 29% at the start of August Fallen back to 23% latest. I suppose if there are unpopular things that must be done, best to do them sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Aug 31, 2024 16:54:21 GMT
So starting again. Average government approval around 30% over the years All time low Oct 2023 at 8% July 2024 23% Peaking 29% at the start of August Fallen back to 23% latest. I suppose if there are unpopular things that must be done, best to do them sooner rather than later. Yup, they'll save the nice things for election time.
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 1, 2024 20:04:02 GMT
I suppose if there are unpopular things that must be done, best to do them sooner rather than later. Yup, they'll save the nice things for election time. I think they are making political decisions about who to hit with tough choices with political calculation. The number crunchers have been working out who always votes for them and who are likely to continue to do so if they are not hit too hard. And there are the ones who sometimes vote for them or who are potentially persuadable. They don't want to hit these too hard either and will probably have sweeteners in mind for them before the next election. And then there are the ones who never vote for them and never will. I think they have coldly calculated that hitting these hard will not hurt Labour very much, especially if it goes down well with the other two groups. The third group probably includes the better off pensioners, and also probably private landlords as well. These are the two groups who are most likely to get a kicking, and if they do it will have nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of doing so and everything to do with cold calculation. But they also want to improve things gradually and be seen to get the housing crisis being tackled. This gives private landlords some leverage if they can logically demonstrate that this or that course of action will actually make things worse. So they might be able to dissuade the powers that be from hitting them too much. Better off pensioners - except for the ones who are also landlords - have no such leverage beyond the threat of not voting Labour. But since they never do anyway it makes zero difference and is thus a totally ineffective threat. What could make Labour look bad in the eyes of people who might otherwise vote for them would be the sight of pensioners struggling in the cold and even freezing to death. This is the last thing Labour wants because it will repel people from supporting them. Which is why I suspect more help for poorer pensioners just a little above the pension credit threshold whilst hammering the richer ones in some other additional way. I am not saying any of the above is right, just explaining what is likely to be their thinking.
|
|