I was reading this morning that a large majority of those, who intend voting for Reform, would vote for the Tories if they were given a referendum on immigration. The issue with that is I am sure that there are many who intend voting for Labour who could be persuaded not to, if they have an issue with immigrants, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it appears in the Tory manifesto.
Stealing the Emperor's clothes, then!! How would such a referéndum be worded? I doubt that such electors have thought about that, if they even bother applying a rationale at all!
Did they define what they meant by a “referendum on immigration”. What on earth would that be. What would we be voting on? There not being any? I’m baffled
Some interesting views in this video, especially the first caller who claims that the statute of limitation to prosecute Angela Rayner for electoral roll irregularities and for capital gains tax evasion has passed.
Brexit at least had somewhat of a definition. The substance wasn’t specific but the nature was. You can’t just vote yes or no on immigration. That’s not a question
I think the manifesto may look a lot like this: The Program of the British Tory Party is designed to be of limited duration. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been achieved, of establishing fresh ones, merely in order to increase, artificially, the discontent of the masses and so ensure the continued existence of the Party. 1. We demand the union of all Brits in a Greater Britain on the basis of the right of national self-determination. 2. We demand equality of rights for the British people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Brexit. 3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population. 4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of British blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Johnny Foreigner may be a member of the nation. 5. Non-citizens may live in Britain only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens. 6. The right to vote on the State’s government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the parliament, in the counties or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens. We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to which private school you went to. 7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the nation. 8. All non-British immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Brits who entered Britain after Brexit shall be required to leave the state forthwith. 9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties - except the poor. 10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of any non-private-schooled individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good. Old boys from Eton will, of course, live tax free!
Well that is the thing - if the proposal is to make immigration to the U.K. impossible then I don’t think there would ever be majority support in parliament for that to be the referendum question
Of course the internet never exaggerates things! While the situation is undoubtedly grim, it's far from WW3.
Not WWIII, but the world does appear to be sleep walking into an ever widening conflict. The USA publicly pledging it’s unwavering support to a country (Israel) clearly run by a maniac (Netanyahu), does not appear calculated to de-escalate the situation.
Not seen Dr Schad on here since the Cass report was published. Probably trying to find a loophole somewhere. Much of what Victoria Atkins says to Wes Streeting could apply to some on the not606 politics thread too. No doubt there will be some who try to defend the stance they took just like the many politicians, celebrities and journalists who are now trying to distance themselves from the virtue signalling flag they've been waving.
Those who see nuclear as an option for future power should read this and the Wiki article. "FROM the start of EDF's interminable development of two new nukes at Hinkley Point in Somerset, we were promised big efficiencies thanks to EDF's prior experience with the same design at Flamanville (France) and Olkiluoto (Finland). Yet every year EDF announces Hinkley will cost even more and will start operations even later." The last paragraphs read. "For the next EDF nuke (Sizewell C), however, the government has cravenly allowed EDF off the hook for the inevitable budget overruns, which will be down to taxpayers (Eyes passim). Given EDF's performance so far, the mind boggles at how the absence of budgetary discipline will affect Sizewell's timetable and eventual cost. We won't find out until we get the bill." https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1621/in-the-back? On the money - not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station "Since construction began in March 2017, the project has been subject to several delays and this has resulted in significant budget overruns. As of May 2022, the project was two years late and the expected cost stood at £25–26 billion, 50% more than the original budget from 2016. In February 2023, EDF announced that costs would rise to £32.7bn in 2023 prices and operation would be delayed by a further 15 months to September 2028. In January 2024, EDF announced that it estimated that the final cost could rise up to £46 billion in 2024 prices and be delayed by up to three years.
Cor! Wot an eyeful! PE podcast. Ian, Helen, Adam and Andy talk about upstanding members, retiring ministers and get all Trussed Up. Cartoon sourced separately. https://audioboom.com/posts/8491818-sexual-politics? please log in to view this image
So, as a supporter of the report, do you agree with this? “Cass, a leading consultant paediatrician, stressed that her findings were not intended to undermine the validity of trans identities or challenge people’s right to transition, but rather to improve the care of the fast-growing number of children and young people with gender-related distress. But she said this care was made even more difficult to provide by the polarised public debate, and the way in which opposing sides had “pointed to research to justify a position, regardless of the quality of the studies”.
