bickster Posted March 5, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2023 28 minutes ago, LondonLax said: If they are losing voters both to their left and to their right they have no base left to work from. They aren't losing any significant numbers to the right. Its fiction All the latest polls... Pollster Con Lab LD Grn RUK Con lead Fieldwork Omnisis 26% (+2) 45% (-3) 11% (+1) 6% (+1) 6% (-2) -19% 2-3/3 Opinium 27% (-1) 44% (nc) 7% (-2) 7% (+1) 8% (+1) -17% 1-3/3 Find Out Now 25% (+2) 48% (nc) 9% (-2) 6% (+1) 5% (nc) -23% 1-3/3 Techne 29% (+2) 47% (-2) 8% (nc) 5% (nc) 6% (+1) -18% 1-2/3 PeoplePolling 24% (+4) 45% (-1) 9% (+2) 8% (nc) 7% (-2) -21% 1/3 Redfield & Wilton 24% (nc) 51% (nc) 9% (-1) 5% (nc) 7% (+1) -27% 26/2 Deltapoll 31% (+3) 46% (-4) 8% (-1) 4% (+1) 5% (+3) -15% 24-27/2 Savanta ComRes 29% (-2) 44% (-1) 9% (nc) 3% (nc) 6% (+2) -15% 24-26/2 BMG 29% (nc) 46% (nc) 9% (nc) 4% (+1) 6% (nc) -17% 21-23/2 YouGov 23% (+1) 46% (-4) 9% (nc) 7% (+1) 8% (+1) -23% 21-22/2 Kantar 28% (-1) 45% (-1) 9% (nc) 7% (+2) 5% (+1) -17% 16-20/2 Survation 26% 42% 11% 5% 6% -16% 1-6/2 Ipsos 26% (+3) 51% (+2) 9% (-4) 5% (+2) – -25% 18-25/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 11 minutes ago, bickster said: They aren't losing any significant numbers to the right. Its fiction All the latest polls... Pollster Con Lab LD Grn RUK Con lead Fieldwork Omnisis 26% (+2) 45% (-3) 11% (+1) 6% (+1) 6% (-2) -19% 2-3/3 Opinium 27% (-1) 44% (nc) 7% (-2) 7% (+1) 8% (+1) -17% 1-3/3 Find Out Now 25% (+2) 48% (nc) 9% (-2) 6% (+1) 5% (nc) -23% 1-3/3 Techne 29% (+2) 47% (-2) 8% (nc) 5% (nc) 6% (+1) -18% 1-2/3 PeoplePolling 24% (+4) 45% (-1) 9% (+2) 8% (nc) 7% (-2) -21% 1/3 Redfield & Wilton 24% (nc) 51% (nc) 9% (-1) 5% (nc) 7% (+1) -27% 26/2 Deltapoll 31% (+3) 46% (-4) 8% (-1) 4% (+1) 5% (+3) -15% 24-27/2 Savanta ComRes 29% (-2) 44% (-1) 9% (nc) 3% (nc) 6% (+2) -15% 24-26/2 BMG 29% (nc) 46% (nc) 9% (nc) 4% (+1) 6% (nc) -17% 21-23/2 YouGov 23% (+1) 46% (-4) 9% (nc) 7% (+1) 8% (+1) -23% 21-22/2 Kantar 28% (-1) 45% (-1) 9% (nc) 7% (+2) 5% (+1) -17% 16-20/2 Survation 26% 42% 11% 5% 6% -16% 1-6/2 Ipsos 26% (+3) 51% (+2) 9% (-4) 5% (+2) – -25% 18-25/1 Reform UK used to poll around 3%. When Sunak became prime minister their vote share more than doubled (some of your polls there even has them up to 8%) at the same time Farage has been finding traction with his attack lines on ‘illegal immigration’ and a ‘UK invasion’. I am not surprised the Tory party have responded with this policy, it attempts to neutralise the attack they have been getting from their right flank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 (edited) 45 minutes ago, LondonLax said: I am not surprised the Tory party have responded with this policy, it attempts to neutralise the attack they have been getting from their right flank. They haven't responded with a policy, they've responded with a newspaper headline. The big-splash announcement of "if you arrive here illegally it invalidates any claim to asylum" has already been law since January 2021 and was repeated in in the Nationality and Borders Act last year. Every law they pass fails when it comes to the question of "what do you do with someone whose claim you won't accept but you cannot legally send anywhere else?" You basically end up popping them in a hotel and paying for them until someone comes up with a plan. While leaking political capital like a sieve, because every couple of months you promise to do something and then just re-announce the same policy you did last time. Edited March 5, 2023 by ml1dch 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 8 minutes ago, ml1dch said: They haven't responded with a policy, they've responded with a newspaper headline. The big-splash announcement of "if you arrive here illegally it invalidates any claim to asylum" has already been law since January 2021 and was repeated in in the Nationality and Borders Act last year. Every law they pass fails when it comes to the question of "what do you do with someone whose claim you won't accept but you cannot legally send anywhere else?" You basically end up popping them in a hotel and paying for them until someone comes up with a plan. While leaking political capital like a sieve, because every couple of months you promise to do something and then just re-announce the same policy you did last time. Essentially they have tried to copy the Australian immigration policies, possibly Lynton Crosby has had some influence there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 (edited) I’d have thought if there was a realistic chance legislation would work it would have happened by now. They are just padding for time. Edited March 5, 2023 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Davkaus Posted March 6, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted March 6, 2023 With this guy representing him, Hancock might be getting a bit nervous 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Davkaus said: With this guy representing him, Hancock might be getting a bit nervous That’s absolutely brilliant GB News got that email on air suspiciously fast, almost as if they knew what he really meant and decided to exploited his error. Edited March 6, 2023 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolta Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 2 minutes ago, Genie said: That’s absolutely brilliant GB News got that email on air suspiciously fast, almost as if they knew what he really meant and decided to exploited his error. Looks like there was a little video edit there in the middle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 Hang on, so Hatt Mandcock asked his lawyer to go out on the airwaves to defend him, whilst not stating who he was, and then this happens? I don't think there has ever been such a hapless politician - someone will make a drama out of this in years to come. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 3 minutes ago, Jareth said: Hang on, so Hatt Mandcock asked his lawyer to go out on the airwaves to defend him, whilst not stating who he was, and then this happens? I don't think there has ever been such a hapless politician - someone will make a drama out of this in years to come. Yeah, it's incredibly underhanded, and the instant karma is perfect. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 6, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 6, 2023 8 minutes ago, Jareth said: someone will make a drama out of this in years to come. I'm sure he'll be happy to share some dirt on himself to make it as well 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 9 minutes ago, Jareth said: Hang on, so Hatt Mandcock asked his lawyer to go out on the airwaves to defend him, whilst not stating who he was, and then this happens? I don't think there has ever been such a hapless politician - someone will make a drama out of this in years to come. Just an average, neutral, law expert saying favourable things about Matt Hancock. Is it even legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 6, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2023 59 minutes ago, Jareth said: someone will make a drama out of this in years to come. No-one would believe it in a drama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 6, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2023 50 minutes ago, Genie said: Is it even legal? Legal, yes, ethical, no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 6, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2023 Matt Hancock is leaving politics, who the flying f*** is going to employ him? He couldn't manage a public toilet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 9 minutes ago, bickster said: Legal, yes, ethical, no I’m thinking more so as a sitting MP deliberately trying to deceive the public. I’d like to think there is a law against it but probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 6, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2023 Just now, Genie said: I’m thinking more so as a sitting MP deliberately trying to deceive the public. I’d like to think there is a law against it but probably not. Has the Tory Party taught you nothing? In this instance, its a Lawyer, deliberately not declaring that the situation he's talking about involves his client. It's unethical Tory MPs have been deliberately deceiving the public for an awful long time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 1 minute ago, bickster said: Has the Tory Party taught you nothing? In this instance, its a Lawyer, deliberately not declaring that the situation he's talking about involves his client. It's unethical Tory MPs have been deliberately deceiving the public for an awful long time. Social Media Influencers aren’t allowed to promote products unless they clearly declare they are being paid to do so. From Handcocks perspective he’s hired someone to go on TV and make him look good and specifically not declare he’s working on his behalf. It should be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 6, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2023 35 minutes ago, Genie said: Social Media Influencers aren’t allowed to promote products unless they clearly declare they are being paid to do so. There is no actual rule on this. Source: Daughter presented a case to the board of the Advertising Standards Authority last week on this very issue. It will be published soon. Also, they made the wrong decision and are going to have to live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, bickster said: There is no actual rule on this. Source: Daughter presented a case to the board of the Advertising Standards Authority last week on this very issue. It will be published soon. Also, they made the wrong decision and are going to have to live with it. Gov.uk suggests hidden ads are illegal. Quote Content creators, such as popular bloggers, influencers, online streamers, celebrities, social media personalities, can have a big impact on a customer’s buying behaviour. If you’ve been incentivised in any way to promote a brand, or product in your social media content, for example in photos including carousels, videos, reels or stories, podcasts or other posts online it’s important that all this content is clearly identifiable as an ad (or advertising). ———————— Hidden ads are illegal and harmful as they can persuade people to buy things they might not usually buy if they’d known that the content was not a non-biased opinion, review or recommendation. Off topic, but linked to what MH has tried to get away with. Edited March 6, 2023 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts