Starmer talking about immigration policy

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3930
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Nearholmer »

Well the answer was yes. How long do you propose we give it ?
As long as the EU exists, and the UK exists (or the separate nations of the UK) and there is democracy, it will be an open issue, something periodically revisited.

it’s not a question that will magically go away, any more than it magically went away from 1974-2016. A decisive majority in a referendum would park it for a few decades maybe, but it would still come back. A very narrow majority barely parks it for five minutes.

If you are short-enough of things to do that you’ve read my other posts in this thread, I’ve said several times that I personally don’t think it should be revisited now.

PS: what do you mean by “moving goal posts”?
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by mjr »

Nearholmer wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 11:17pm
PS: what do you mean by “moving goal posts”?
I think it's trying to pretend that no one said before the vote that there should be a supermajority requirement, that Leave should have had to reverse the 67-33 result from 1975.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3930
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Nearholmer »

Well, I haven’t mentioned needing a “super majority”, merely that narrow margin outcomes in votes don’t properly settle matters. A term on a parish council, or the committee of a gardening club, would convince anyone of that. Anything decided by a narrow margin gets dragged up again and re-opened at the slightest provocation or opportunity.

It is interesting though that votes on huge constitutional decisions in democracies often do need “super majorities”, and I think that is precisely to prevent the sort of problem this country has got itself into with Brexit and Indyref, where a referendum can open a huge issue, but with narrow margin it can’t close one, thereby creating bubbling instability.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by pete75 »

ossie wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 11:01pm
pete75 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 10:50pm Haven't you? It's frequently used to describe close run votes in a general election - narrow majority, small majority etc. With the FTP system I suppose it's unnecesary to say simple majority because all are elected on a simple majority. A narrow majority is a true description of the Brexit vote.
Yet you rarely see the word 'simple' thrown in followed by a conspiracy theory. A narrow majority I accept but he didn't say that.
So you saw a word you think is rarely used. Big deal.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Stevek76 »

Simple is a technical term which was used accurately (and differentiates from other types such as a supermajority). Nothing afterwards was in any way conspiracy, unless you'd like to highlight which parts?
pete75 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 10:50pm With the FTP system I suppose it's unnecesary to say simple majority because all are elected on a simple majority. A narrow majority is a true description of the Brexit vote.
There is still a difference between a simple majority (at least half of voters) and a plurality - the most, but less than half of voters - which is all the Tories need to win absolute power and foist said referendum upon us
Nearholmer wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 11:43pm It is interesting though that votes on huge constitutional decisions in democracies often do need “super majorities”, and I think that is precisely to prevent the sort of problem this country has got itself into with Brexit and Indyref, where a referendum can open a huge issue, but with narrow margin it can’t close one, thereby creating bubbling instability.
Quite. Oddly enough there was actually a genuine big majority in '75
Nearholmer wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 10:16pm TBH, much as I’d like them to be, I don’t think the figures suggesting a large majority in favour of the EU are truly solid now. If we had a referendum again after yet another bitter campaign, it would probably result in a 4% margin again, just the other way, and the rumblings wouldn’t stop.
As above, I simply wouldn't bother with the referendum part, they are a relatively novel concept in uk politics which have exclusively been used to offload internal party quibbles on a public that is never going to have the time nor inclination to come to an informed and evidence based conclusion on the matter. They are completely at odds to the idea of representative democracy.

As polling has consistently showed, outside of the referendum and it's aftermath, it's really not a topic people actually care much about. Given the economic kick generated I strongly doubt there would be any significant political consequences from moving to, at minimum, a much closer relationship.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Carlton green
Posts: 3645
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Carlton green »

Nearholmer wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 11:43pm Well, I haven’t mentioned needing a “super majority”, merely that narrow margin outcomes in votes don’t properly settle matters. A term on a parish council, or the committee of a gardening club, would convince anyone of that. Anything decided by a narrow margin gets dragged up again and re-opened at the slightest provocation or opportunity.

It is interesting though that votes on huge constitutional decisions in democracies often do need “super majorities”, and I think that is precisely to prevent the sort of problem this country has got itself into with Brexit and Indyref, where a referendum can open a huge issue, but with narrow margin it can’t close one, thereby creating bubbling instability.
As I recall Cameron put before the electorate as unappealing as possible hard Brexit option so to win that vote was running up hill. Of course it’s hard to tell but if he’d put a softer option to the public then the leave vote would likely have been stronger. Should we also be questioning who can set the question on the referendum ballot too rather than have one side free to load the dice in their favour?

Supermajorities to change something, well I do see some logic to that suggestion. Wait though, didn’t Boris get just that? Anyway setting aside the last GE I’m inclined to think that for a referendum to change something then a minimum turnout should be required and agree that a clearer result than 52/48 should be the aim. Perhaps a result approaching 60/40 (3:2) would be fair and in the right ballpark?
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by thirdcrank »

Carlton green wrote: 1 Dec 2022, 8:11pm
Nearholmer wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 11:43pm Well, I haven’t mentioned needing a “super majority”, merely that narrow margin outcomes in votes don’t properly settle matters. A term on a parish council, or the committee of a gardening club, would convince anyone of that. Anything decided by a narrow margin gets dragged up again and re-opened at the slightest provocation or opportunity.

It is interesting though that votes on huge constitutional decisions in democracies often do need “super majorities”, and I think that is precisely to prevent the sort of problem this country has got itself into with Brexit and Indyref, where a referendum can open a huge issue, but with narrow margin it can’t close one, thereby creating bubbling instability.
As I recall Cameron put before the electorate as unappealing as possible hard Brexit option so to win that vote was running up hill. Of course it’s hard to tell but if he’d put a softer option to the public then the leave vote would likely have been stronger.

Supermajorities to change something, well I do see some logic to that suggestion. Wait though, didn’t Boris get just that? Anyway setting aside the last GE I’m inclined to think that for a referendum to change something then a minimum turnout should be required and agree that a clearer result than 52/48 should be the aim. Perhaps a result something approaching 60/40 (3:2) would be fair and in the right ballpark?
My recollection is that Boris Johnson gained a substantial majority by offering a quick end to the parliamentary impasse. The "oven-ready Brexit." I anticipate a list of the unexpected events that prevented delivery of what was presented as a pushover
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Stevek76 »

Johnson got 42.4% of the vote, so no, he didn't even manage a simple majority, merely a plurality.

As for cameron, of course he did, but he was the leader of the executive and not the legislature so anything he said on the outcome was merely his opinion on the matter which consequently was irrelevant since he decided to fall on his sword the day after rather than deal with the mess he'd just made. It was not within his gift to put options to the public.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Psamathe »

(Not wanting to start another related thread, a bit of a tengent maybe)

I see the High Court has rules the Braverman (as Home Secretary) has acted illegally over asylum seeker support
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/17/home-secretary-suella-braverman-acting-unlawfully-over-asylum-seeker-support-high-court-rules wrote:Braverman acting unlawfully over asylum seeker support, high court rules
The home secretary is acting unlawfully in failing to ensure the rate of support for more than 50,000 asylum seekers is adequate by not implementing an increase of almost £5 a week recommended by officials, the high court has found.
...
Ian
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5430
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Cugel »

Psamathe wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 12:01pm (Not wanting to start another related thread, a bit of a tengent maybe)

I see the High Court has rules the Braverman (as Home Secretary) has acted illegally over asylum seeker support
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/17/home-secretary-suella-braverman-acting-unlawfully-over-asylum-seeker-support-high-court-rules wrote:Braverman acting unlawfully over asylum seeker support, high court rules
The home secretary is acting unlawfully in failing to ensure the rate of support for more than 50,000 asylum seekers is adequate by not implementing an increase of almost £5 a week recommended by officials, the high court has found.
...
Ian
Suella employs the theory of law that goes, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". That other law-stuff is for the serfs & villeins, who need to suppressed so that Suellas may operate freely to achieve their dream of exterminating boat people and the like as a handy vote-catcher from those who wish to keep little england little, nay tiny, in population and mind.

Cugel, just a bog-standard peasant.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by pwa »

Cugel wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 1:31pm
Psamathe wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 12:01pm (Not wanting to start another related thread, a bit of a tengent maybe)

I see the High Court has rules the Braverman (as Home Secretary) has acted illegally over asylum seeker support
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/17/home-secretary-suella-braverman-acting-unlawfully-over-asylum-seeker-support-high-court-rules wrote:Braverman acting unlawfully over asylum seeker support, high court rules
The home secretary is acting unlawfully in failing to ensure the rate of support for more than 50,000 asylum seekers is adequate by not implementing an increase of almost £5 a week recommended by officials, the high court has found.
...
Ian
Suella employs the theory of law that goes, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". That other law-stuff is for the serfs & villeins, who need to suppressed so that Suellas may operate freely to achieve their dream of exterminating boat people and the like as a handy vote-catcher from those who wish to keep little england little, nay tiny, in population and mind.

Cugel, just a bog-standard peasant.
Braverman is certainly uncaring, flippant and cavalier in her attitude, but even she deserves to have her views put correctly and I don't think I have ever heard her say anything that would indicate that she wants to exterminate (like a dalek?) boat people. And England has a population of 53 million, which isn't tiny, really. Not unless you use the likes of China and India as your reference points. Perhaps you were getting a bit carried away there? :lol:
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by pete75 »

pwa wrote: 20 Dec 2022, 6:38am
Braverman is certainly uncaring, flippant and cavalier in her attitude, but even she deserves to have her views put correctly and I don't think I have ever heard her say anything that would indicate that she wants to exterminate (like a dalek?) boat people. And England has a population of 53 million, which isn't tiny, really. Not unless you use the likes of China and India as your reference points. Perhaps you were getting a bit carried away there? :lol:
I don't think she'd dare take active steps to exterminate them but she'll be pleased when the sea does the job for her.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by pwa »

pete75 wrote: 20 Dec 2022, 8:36pm
pwa wrote: 20 Dec 2022, 6:38am
Braverman is certainly uncaring, flippant and cavalier in her attitude, but even she deserves to have her views put correctly and I don't think I have ever heard her say anything that would indicate that she wants to exterminate (like a dalek?) boat people. And England has a population of 53 million, which isn't tiny, really. Not unless you use the likes of China and India as your reference points. Perhaps you were getting a bit carried away there? :lol:
I don't think she'd dare take active steps to exterminate them but she'll be pleased when the sea does the job for her.
If her character is as I think it is, she would be indifferent to migrants drowning at sea, which is a bad enough reaction, or lack of one.
Post Reply