Jump to content

CaptainSwing

Members
  • Content Count

    1,747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CaptainSwing

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

596 profile views
  1. The creeping fascism continues. Incoming Attorney General seeks to undermine one of the foundations of the British constitution, the independent judiciary: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/13/new-attorney-general-wanted-to-take-back-control-from-courts Be afraid, folks, be very afraid.
  2. That sounds familiar - perhaps that's the point you're making?
  3. Anybody who believes there is no media bias against anybody to the left of <insert favourite right-wing archetype> is definitely deluded.
  4. Yes, it would have had to cut both ways. Of the 47 seats in England and Wales that "would have" been won by the opposition under my scenario, the Lib Dems secured more votes than Labour in 17, all but two of these being in the south and west of England, the exceptions being Cheadle and Hazel Grove. Labour had the bigger vote in the other 30, which were scattered across England and Wales.
  5. As Richie Benaud used to say, "always do what you believe the opposition would least like you to do". On that basis, it would have to be Keir Starmer - the Tories have already started spreading fake news about him, getting their retaliation in first. Only a matter of time before the media, and social media, are full of stories about "the notorious holocaust denier 'Red Keir' Starmer". The idea that so-called "centrist" policies are popular is also nonsense of course, even if people have been propagandised into thinking that the alternative is "unaffordable" [which is not to deny that the recent Labour manifesto was a bit, shall we say, overambitious]. It's the look he gives the laydees when he's putting on the smarm. Imagine waking up next to that!
  6. Before the election I went on about how the anti-Tory parties needed to form an electoral pact if they were to collectively stand a chance. I've calculated what would have happened if all Labour/Lib Dem/Green/SNP/Plaid voters had voted for the same party in each constituency, and all Brexit Party voters had voted Tory. I'm aware that this isn't necessarily how people would have voted if that had been the actual choice, and I haven't tried to take account of fringe parties or independents, but I think it's interesting all the same. If I've got my sums right, the Tories would have won 326 seats instead of 365, giving them a majority of 2 instead of 80. They'd have won 13 more Labour seats, all but one of them (Dagenham) in the north of England, 6 of them in the vicinity of Sheffield, including Barnsley East and Central, where the Brexit Party outpolled the Tories. But they'd have lost 52 other seats all over the country, including 5 of their 6 seats in Scotland. Data here, in case anyone wants to check the calculations: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8749
  7. Yes, she seems to be the candidate that the propaganda machine would like you to endorse.
  8. Photo ID requirements are one way in which the Republicans in the USA try to suppress the Democrat vote (along with gerrymandering, disenfranchising former criminals, and closing down polling stations or moving them to inaccessible locations, etc.). Whether the photo ID requirement works in this way is still under debate, but it seems to be well established that voter suppression is the intention. [The stated intention is to protect elections from in-person voter fraud, but as you say that's an imaginary problem, the rate being fewer than 31 cases per billion votes cast.]
  9. There's an interesting little analysis of what class means these days, and how it interacts with Labour, on pages 9-12 of this: https://www.paulmason.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/After-Corbynism-v1.4.pdf Not all of the turkeys voted for Christmas. Many ABC1 people are also turkeys these days and, as you point out, voted for Christmas to be cancelled. Put another way, that ABC etc. categorization is outdated, which is one of the points that that part of the pamphlet is making. There's also a frank but fair assessment of the defeat and some suggestions for the way forward.
  10. Indeed, viewed impartially Mr Johnson should have been at least as big a liability for the Dark Side as Mr Corbyn was for Labour. I see that the propaganda machine is already sharpening its knives for Keir Starmer.
  11. Thanks, that's exactly the link we've been looking for I think. To sum up, (1) The Australian points-based system is specifically for people who have not got a job offer (the opposite of what Mr Johnson and Home Secretary Ms Patel seem to believe). (2) The existing UK points-based system is more similar to the existing Australian employer-sponsored scheme (i.e. is for people who have got a job offer), but takes on some of the characteristics of the Australian points-based system when it hits its quota. (3) The Australian points-based scheme was designed to increase migration levels over and above those generated by the employer-sponsored scheme, so as to enlarge the pool of skilled/qualified people in the country. This is presumably one reason why levels of migration into Australia are (proportionally) so much higher than they are into the UK.
  12. Sorry, I thought that the difference (or lack thereof) between the systems was exactly what we were discussing. And I'd argue that percentages are a fairer way of doing the comparison. To clarify, do you think a points-based system (or more stringent application of the current system) would be a good or a bad idea? I've googled quite hard, but haven't been able to find anything about large scale "special exemptions" in the current system. There's a Shortage Occupation List that you basically have to be on to get visas in certain Tiers - is that what you were referring to? Meanwhile here's some background information (which I haven't read much of yet): https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7662/CBP-7662.pdf
  13. I note that the Economist article that's referenced there has the strapline "The countries that invented points-based immigration systems have concluded they do not work". Unfortunately I'm not able to review any of the evidence in the rest of the article as it's behind a paywall. Given that the article was written in July 2016, the "slashing" claim at least is questionable. The current immigration and net migration rates are both about the same as they were under New Labour, and were well above it in 2016, see Figure 1 in the following: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/february2019 It's probably also worth noting that, points-based immigration system or no points-based immigration system, net immigration into Australia is far higher, as a percentage of the population, than it is into the UK. E.g. in 2018 the figures are around 0.96% into Australia (237,200 into a population of about 24.6 million) and 0.39% into the UK (258,000 into a population of about 66.4 million). Though the trend is downwards in both countries. I appreciate that you personally are only concerned about quality, not quantity, but I think that the numbers are important for a lot of people.
  14. The system still seems pretty active to me. Here are a couple of sites that I'm basing that on: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-6a-the-points-based-system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points-based_immigration_system_(United_Kingdom) A couple of sub-categories have become obsolete, and one (Tier 3) has never been activated because needs have so far been met by EU migrants, but as far as I'm aware the system as a whole is still in place. But I stand to be corrected.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.