5 ms·

You're surely joking. The IMF isn't bailing out the UK, and there aren't 3 day week debates because of the failing power supply. What's led to the death of the

You're surely joking. The IMF isn't bailing out the UK, and there aren't 3 day week debates because of the failing power supply. What's led to the death of the Conservative party is them doing exactly the opposite what a lot of Conservative voters want: bigger economy, and slower immigration.

bojan 2y ago
Didn't they get more independence with Brexit? Regarding the immigration, sure, the Conservative voters maybe want less of it, but rich and influential Tories actually like immigration as it allows their businesses to thrive (even more). The UK has more capital going around than her own people.
- mattlondon 2y ago
  Legal immigrants from the EU were not the only source of migrants to the UK. Many come from elsewhere, legally and otherwise. Guess what: we have Brexit but we still have immigrants - impossible?! </sarcasm> Plus it was never about immigration, it was always - I think - a classic case of misinformation and greed from many places. Sadly many people fell for it.
  - EndShell 2y ago
    > Plus it was never about immigration, It was partly about immigration. According to these surveys 43% of people that voted leave think immigration should be reduced. https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=8&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:... > it was always - I think - a classic case of misinformation and greed from many places. Sadly many people fell for it. Why do many people assume that if someone thinks differently about a particular political issue they must have fooled somehow? Considering there is data that partially contradicts your belief that it wasn't about immigration, maybe your assessment about their level of understanding of the issues involved is also incorrect.
    - youngtaff 2y ago
      > It was partly about immigration My view is it’s actually about people being racist
      - EndShell 2y ago
        Well there is no evidence to back that up. In fact there is plenty that indicates the opposite. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk... There is in the section entitled "Preferences for different types of migrant: origin, similarity, skill level". (There doesn't seem to be a way to directly reference it in a document). > Country of origin is not the only factor that people take into account when considering preferences on immigration. In the European Social Survey 2014, British respondents reported how many immigrants should be allowed based on a question that specified both the country of origin (Poland or India) and the skill level (professional or unskilled labourer). The results revealed that when migrants are professionals, opposition is low, and when migrants are unskilled, opposition is high (Figure 5). Research has shown that people’s general preference for high-skilled over low-skilled migrants is mainly driven by perceptions of their higher economic contribution > The preference among the British public for highly skilled migrants aligns with previous research indicating that, when questioned about the criteria for incoming migrants, skills are considered more important than other factors such as race/ethnicity and religion. Direct link to the stats: https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE5?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=4&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE5?:...
      - the_third_wave 2y ago
        My view is there needs to be a version of Godwin's law related to client of supposed 'racism', i.e. the one who claims ${issue} is caused by/related to 'racism' thereby loses the argument unless he comes with solid proof. I see no proof, spurious claims of 'racism' do not count as such so it actually was about immigration.
- EndShell 2y ago
  > Didn't they get more independence with Brexit? We didn't leave the EHCR. So there is an argument that we don't have full control of our laws. IANAL and won't pretend to know the specifics. > Regarding the immigration, sure, the Conservative voters maybe want less of it, but rich and influential Tories actually like immigration as it allows their businesses to thrive (even more). Not just Conservative voters. Almost 1 in 5 Labour and Lib Dem voters want to see it reduced. https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=8&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:... Generally 52% of the UK want to see it immigration reduced in some capacity according to the migration observatory. This was roughly the Vote Leave percentage. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk...
  - bojan 2y ago
    > Not just Conservative voters. That's also not what I said nor implied. The parent comment discussed Conservatives, so I replied to that.
    - EndShell 2y ago
      I know. I felt like it needed to be pointed out that even on parties that are seen to be more centre-left/left that there is good portion of voters that are opposition to immigration. This is because I don't think it is as much of a right/left issue like it is frequently framed.
  - pmyteh 2y ago
    The ECHR is an international agreement like many, many others. It has special status in UK law only because we chose to: that was the purpose of the Human Rights Act. You can also take complaints of breach to the European Court of Human Rights, but they have no enforcement powers (in particular, Russia often decided not to bother complying, and we've avoided enforcing their ruling on prisoner voting rights with their tacit consent). It used to be the case that we were also tied into the ECHR (and playing nice with the rulings of the ECtHR) because it's required by EU law even though it's not an EU instrument and the ECtHR isn't an EU court. But as we've left that's no longer an issue. Finally, I'd just say that there's little objectionable about the Convention, and for the most part it tracks very closely with existing British common law (not surprisingly, as it was a Churchill-supported project in the first place and intended to export what was great about the British tradition of liberty as much as to bind us into Europe). There are a few edge cases where politicians and certain newspapers get into enormous flaps about individual cases, but it's really not that constraining a convention: most of the clauses have get-outs for crime, morality and public order and the margin of appreciation is generally quite broad. It's not perfect any more than, say, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, but the complaints are mostly grandstanding.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > The UK has more capital going around than her own people. Wealth and income are not zero-sum. Generally, people produce more than they consume (or we'd all be living in caves). Reducing people reduces output, growth, and wealth.
ForTheKidz 2y ago
The UK economy is already pretty small per-capita compared to other first-world countries. I'm certainly not one to argue for growth, but what is it about UK's conservatism that demands degrowth? It strikes me as antithetical to the liberalisation that I would think would form the right flank of the spectrum. From my perspective, even economic concerns are driven by fear of immigration: it's just the same old "immigrants are taking my jobs but also somehow not growing the economy so I am now economically displaced" trope.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > The UK economy is already pretty small per-capita compared to other first-world countries. ? Where does it rank? What is per capita GDP?
- linksnapzz 2y ago
  There is a finite amount of housing. Britons do not, actually, wish to carpet their entire island w/ semidetached housing, so each and every immigrant occupying a flat is one less that a native could be living in.

bojan 2y ago

Didn't they get more independence with Brexit? Regarding the immigration, sure, the Conservative voters maybe want less of it, but rich and influential Tories actually like immigration as it allows their businesses to thrive (even more). The UK has more capital going around than her own people.

mattlondon 2y ago
Legal immigrants from the EU were not the only source of migrants to the UK. Many come from elsewhere, legally and otherwise. Guess what: we have Brexit but we still have immigrants - impossible?! </sarcasm> Plus it was never about immigration, it was always - I think - a classic case of misinformation and greed from many places. Sadly many people fell for it.
- EndShell 2y ago
  > Plus it was never about immigration, It was partly about immigration. According to these surveys 43% of people that voted leave think immigration should be reduced. https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=8&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:... > it was always - I think - a classic case of misinformation and greed from many places. Sadly many people fell for it. Why do many people assume that if someone thinks differently about a particular political issue they must have fooled somehow? Considering there is data that partially contradicts your belief that it wasn't about immigration, maybe your assessment about their level of understanding of the issues involved is also incorrect.
  - youngtaff 2y ago
    > It was partly about immigration My view is it’s actually about people being racist
    - EndShell 2y ago
      Well there is no evidence to back that up. In fact there is plenty that indicates the opposite. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk... There is in the section entitled "Preferences for different types of migrant: origin, similarity, skill level". (There doesn't seem to be a way to directly reference it in a document). > Country of origin is not the only factor that people take into account when considering preferences on immigration. In the European Social Survey 2014, British respondents reported how many immigrants should be allowed based on a question that specified both the country of origin (Poland or India) and the skill level (professional or unskilled labourer). The results revealed that when migrants are professionals, opposition is low, and when migrants are unskilled, opposition is high (Figure 5). Research has shown that people’s general preference for high-skilled over low-skilled migrants is mainly driven by perceptions of their higher economic contribution > The preference among the British public for highly skilled migrants aligns with previous research indicating that, when questioned about the criteria for incoming migrants, skills are considered more important than other factors such as race/ethnicity and religion. Direct link to the stats: https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE5?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=4&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE5?:...
    - the_third_wave 2y ago
      My view is there needs to be a version of Godwin's law related to client of supposed 'racism', i.e. the one who claims ${issue} is caused by/related to 'racism' thereby loses the argument unless he comes with solid proof. I see no proof, spurious claims of 'racism' do not count as such so it actually was about immigration.
EndShell 2y ago
> Didn't they get more independence with Brexit? We didn't leave the EHCR. So there is an argument that we don't have full control of our laws. IANAL and won't pretend to know the specifics. > Regarding the immigration, sure, the Conservative voters maybe want less of it, but rich and influential Tories actually like immigration as it allows their businesses to thrive (even more). Not just Conservative voters. Almost 1 in 5 Labour and Lib Dem voters want to see it reduced. https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=8&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:... Generally 52% of the UK want to see it immigration reduced in some capacity according to the migration observatory. This was roughly the Vote Leave percentage. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk...
- bojan 2y ago
  > Not just Conservative voters. That's also not what I said nor implied. The parent comment discussed Conservatives, so I replied to that.
  - EndShell 2y ago
    I know. I felt like it needed to be pointed out that even on parties that are seen to be more centre-left/left that there is good portion of voters that are opposition to immigration. This is because I don't think it is as much of a right/left issue like it is frequently framed.
- pmyteh 2y ago
  The ECHR is an international agreement like many, many others. It has special status in UK law only because we chose to: that was the purpose of the Human Rights Act. You can also take complaints of breach to the European Court of Human Rights, but they have no enforcement powers (in particular, Russia often decided not to bother complying, and we've avoided enforcing their ruling on prisoner voting rights with their tacit consent). It used to be the case that we were also tied into the ECHR (and playing nice with the rulings of the ECtHR) because it's required by EU law even though it's not an EU instrument and the ECtHR isn't an EU court. But as we've left that's no longer an issue. Finally, I'd just say that there's little objectionable about the Convention, and for the most part it tracks very closely with existing British common law (not surprisingly, as it was a Churchill-supported project in the first place and intended to export what was great about the British tradition of liberty as much as to bind us into Europe). There are a few edge cases where politicians and certain newspapers get into enormous flaps about individual cases, but it's really not that constraining a convention: most of the clauses have get-outs for crime, morality and public order and the margin of appreciation is generally quite broad. It's not perfect any more than, say, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, but the complaints are mostly grandstanding.
mmooss 2y ago
> The UK has more capital going around than her own people. Wealth and income are not zero-sum. Generally, people produce more than they consume (or we'd all be living in caves). Reducing people reduces output, growth, and wealth.

ForTheKidz 2y ago

The UK economy is already pretty small per-capita compared to other first-world countries. I'm certainly not one to argue for growth, but what is it about UK's conservatism that demands degrowth? It strikes me as antithetical to the liberalisation that I would think would form the right flank of the spectrum. From my perspective, even economic concerns are driven by fear of immigration: it's just the same old "immigrants are taking my jobs but also somehow not growing the economy so I am now economically displaced" trope.

mmooss 2y ago
> The UK economy is already pretty small per-capita compared to other first-world countries. ? Where does it rank? What is per capita GDP?
linksnapzz 2y ago
There is a finite amount of housing. Britons do not, actually, wish to carpet their entire island w/ semidetached housing, so each and every immigrant occupying a flat is one less that a native could be living in.