he'd do it from his rolls royce, driving alongside the railway line. wouldn't want to risk mixing with the plebs on a train (even though he's closer to them than he likes to put on, having had to marry into the actual aristocracy)
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Quite possibly, though I did note that the swing at Kingswood in the recent by-election was relatively low, and the Conservative-voting parts of Kingswood are being transferred to Moggland.
So that might suggest that Moggland is a disproportionately Tory-leaning area, perhaps.
I do note that Duncan Smith is standing in Chingford, which he only just held last time. That is surely a dead cert Labour gain. (Though as Tories go, there are worse characters than Duncan Smith).
Hunt is another possibility for the Portillo moment.
Last edited:
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
There have been "efficient" Conservative shuffling of boundaries - one would expect the alliance of Harpenden and Hitchin with a belt of rich countryside would be "safe" - but no - they have now aligned HPDN with Berkhampstead - nice places but with no obvious connection. Anyway , this may not save them.
Let us hope the voters of present "Moggland" do their national duties and vote the Conservatives out. (said from St Albans where of course , this was done !)
brad465
Established Member
With news today that we're out of recession, I wonder if Sunak will suddenly use this to call an election and try and ride off this news before anymore scandals emerge?
Oh yes, St Albans, along with Putney, joint winners of the "Standing Up To Boris Award, 2019". Anne Main, I believe, being a rare Tory to lose their seat. Didn't think much of her from what I read.
The news also made the important point that rent rises have not abated, and prices of goods are still high. The NHS is still also in the doldrums. So for many it's a case of shrugging their shoulders and saying "so what?"
DustyBin
Established Member
The same as when it was announced that we were in recession for most people I suspect.... The media jumped on it of course as it was a bad news story, but nothing suddenly changed. Still, it's a positive development, and confidence in the UK internationally appears to be high, so although early days it's certainly positive.
The Tories were so desperate to message previously that it was only a "technical" recession, so it's only fair to point out that this is really only a "technical" recovery.
Exactly! It's not like growth has returned with vigor.
Depends who you listen to! Some Tories appear to be pretending that this is tremendous growth we're experiencing and yet I can recall when 2% was considered a bear minimum...
DustyBin
Established Member
Quite.... I think it's relative!
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,189
And it's not like it disappeared with vigour either.
Prior to this announcement, over the last two years UK GDP growth varied between +0.5% and -0.3%. This quarter is +0.6%. I would suggest that this variation is probably no more than would be expected from general "noise" and probably only within the accuracy limits the ONS can work to anyway. Essentially, despite hundreds of thousands of additional people being allowed to settle here (which we are told is essential to see economic growth) the UK economy is flat and the latest "boom" is no more to be celebrated than the 0.1% and 0.3% drops seen in the previous two quarters are to be mourned over. They were a fuss over nothing and so is this (and bear in mind the usual "adjustment" will be announced in a couple of weeks which will probably see that figure revised downwards). With overall GDP flatlining and the population increasing substantially, GDP per capita (a better measure of individual prosperity) must obviously fall.
The UK economy will never substantially grow unless some radical changes are made to its economic model. The Conservatives are not prepared to make those changes and from what little we know of Labour's economic policy, neither are they.
Last edited:
Cross City
Member
The US in the same period 8+%, Italy at 5%.
What source are you using for your growth figures? Although 2023 was flat (0.1%), 2022 had growth of 4.3%
GDP first quarterly estimate, UK - Office for National Statistics
First quarterly estimate of gross domestic product (GDP). Contains current and constant price data on the value of UK goods and services.
www.ons.gov.uk
I'm starting to think that the quality of logic education isn't what it used to be, as some people don't appear to understand the difference between "necessary" and "necessary and sufficient".
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That cuts both ways. Lots of politicians/people on the left have spent quite a while proclaiming that the recession proves that the Tories are useless. Lots of Remainers have spent quite a while proclaiming that the recession proves Brexit was a failure. How will those people to the latest figures? I think we all know the answer: The Tories will only look at the 'good' statistics and ignore (or make excuses for) the bad. Labour, and separately those still campaigning against Brexit will only look at the bad statistics and ignore the good,
Last edited:
Quite, the economy has, in effect, flatlined. It is neither growing nor shrinking it's just bumbling around not doing much of anything.
Yes, whilst I will happily dunk on the Tories and the right-wing media for couching the "recession" as a "Technical Recession" when I think we all know that if Labour had been in charge they would have screaming from the rooftops of economic mismanagement and I will also happily dunk on them now for claiming that it's "proof" that we've "turned the corner" and Britain is roaring back to life. I'm not particularly convinced that it tells us anything useful really other than the economy is weak at the moment certainly it doesn't prove anything one way or the other about Brexit or the Government's competence. Just that we're a hole and I doubt the Government can get us out of it.
This. Exactly.
We're dangerously close to the situation that Japan found itself in in the 1990s into the 2000s with an economy stuck in the doldrums, doing just well enough to avoid collapse but nothing much better than that.
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,189
The bottom of this report from the BBC:
UK exits recession with fastest growth in two years
The economy grew by a stronger than expected 0.6% in the first three months of the year.
www.bbc.co.uk
And I'm starting to think that if the net migration figures to the UK recently (>3.5m over the last six years) are deemed insufficient to see GDP growth, there is even more wrong with the country's economic model than I imagined. There is no lack of people in the UK; there is a lack of people in work.
You're just demonstrating exactly my point. Nobody has ever said that inward migration is sufficient for economic growth, but it is necessary since we don't have enough people with the necessary skills.The bottom of this report from the BBC:
UK exits recession with fastest growth in two years
The economy grew by a stronger than expected 0.6% in the first three months of the year.www.bbc.co.uk
And I'm starting to think that if the net migration figures to the UK recently (>3.5m over the last six years) are deemed insufficient to see GDP growth, there is even more wrong with the country's economic model than I imagined. There is no lack of people in the UK; there is a lack of people in work.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
We've managed to have long term economic growth per capita for the entire period since the industrial revolution (with the only exceptions being during short periods when some external factor disrupted it). Why should today be any different from the past such that all of a sudden we need immigration to drive growth? That makes no sense to me.
The main long term driver of economic growth - technology improvements combined with market competition - remains present. You cite lack of technical skills, but I don't see there's anything that would have recently made people more stupid or less capable of acquiring technical skills than would've been the case in the past. I see no reason to think - as you claim - that inward migration should in principle be necessary to create economic growth.
Erm... I knew that logic education was lacking, but I didn't realise history was as well.
Britain was built on immigrants. From the days of Empire through to the Windrush generation and onwards.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,170
Oh, me too, but I suspect he'd contain his feelings a lot better than Zahawi would. He might even have a smile on his lips ala Portillo. Of course, this all assumes Rees-Mogg hasn't crossed the floor of the house before then.
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,189
Indeed not. But you intimated that it is not when you questioned the quality of my education:
I didn't mention the quality or quantity of it at all. I simply said we are told it is "essential"; it's obvious that some quality or quantity requirements would go along with that contention so I don't really know why you raised the issue.
Education in history may not be so deficient as you imagine. I haven't gone back to the Empire days, but in the 1960s and 1970s net migration was very often negative and for the whole of that period and until the mid 1990's it rarely got into double figures (in thousands). In many years the influx was just about balancing the outflow (which seems a sensible strategy). As far as I can see, the economy didn't do too badly during that time. There were a couple of periods of recession (the 1970s oil crisis for instance) but otherwise growth was quite steady. Since the soar in net migration began I would have thought that GDP growth would similarly take off (if indeed there was need for "sufficient" immigration to secure that growth). But it doesn't seem to have happened. Growth is no better now than it was when there was negative net migration and in some years has been considerably worse (leaving aside the financial crisis and Covid). So there must be something offsetting the benefits that increased immigration is said to bring. I wonder what it is?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Wow, so nice to me about my education levels!
But no. Look at this graph, courtesy of Migration Watch:
It shows that almost throughout the 100 years prior to Windrush in the late 1940s, the % of England+Wales population that was foreign-born was negligible. Yet during that period, the inflation-adjusted England per capita GDP nearly tripled, from £2914 in 1850 to £7301 in 1950 (Source. Data in 2013 prices). So clearly immigration was not necessary for growth. [*]
Besides, think of the logic of what you're suggesting. Remember that, on a World-wide scale, immigration is a zero-sum game: One country's immigration is another country's emigration. If, as you claimed, immigration was necessary for economic growth, than it would be impossible for the economy of the World as a whole to ever grow! I think history has something to say about that conclusion
[*] Yes I know one set of stats is for England and Wales, the other is for just England, and neither is for the UK as a whole. That's not going to make a lot of difference though because Wales is much smaller than England, and England makes up such a high proportion of the UK population.
Last edited:
Because your post would only make sense if immigration is both necessary and sufficient for economic growth, which is a claim that's never been made. The fact that it's 'essential' implies that it's necessary but makes no comment on if it's sufficient.
Two factors that likely aren't considered in that dataset are (a) much of the UK's GDP was generated in the Empire (e.g. sugar and textiles produced in the Caribbean were shipped to the UK and turned into finished products here) and so counted for our GDP in a way that doesn't apply now that imports are accounted for as foreign imports; and (b) child mortality was much higher, so a lot of young native born would have masked some of the impact of adult immigrants on the population figures as a whole
You just have to look at how many families trace their origins back to inwards migration from the colonies from the 1700s onwards
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If the economy is so bad that are no jobs to go to, then why are migrants arriving? I suggest it's actually the case that it's bad for reasons unrelated to migration but to a large extent due to the other actions of the government since 2010, and without the migration it would be even worse.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I don't believe that's correct. The stats showed that between 1850 and ~1950 massive growth happened in the absence of significant immigration. That is enough by itself to demonstrate that immigration is not in any way necessary for economic growth.
Another way of looking at it is that per-capita GDP is roughly going to be the proportion of the population who are working * the average output per working person. Therefore per-capita growth requires one of those two things to grow. The proportion of people working is basically capped at the proportion of people who are of working age, so the only thing that can provide long term economic growth is growth in the average output per working person. It should be obvious that that can only be achieved through improvements in technology or working practices etc., and therefore has very little to do with immigration.
I believe that actually helps my case because - if my understanding of history is correct - the proportion of GDP that relied on stuff imported from the empire would have been greater in 1850 than in 1950. Taking that decline into account, the increase in per capita GDP achieved in the absence of substantial immigration becomes even more dramatic.
It may demonstrate that immigration was not necessary for growth in that period, but it does not demonstrate that it is not necessary now. The economic environment is not the same now as it was between 1850 and 1950.
It is not obvious, or even true, that per capita economic growth can only be achieved by improvements in technology or working practices etc. Adding more working immigrants to the population increases the proportion of working people in the population, and therefore is another way to causes per capita economic growth.
D6130
Established Member
....not to mention the Romans, Saxons, Danes and Normans. Most of them crossed the channel in small (-ish) boats too.
I think you're meaning that the 'shuffling of boundaries' carried out by the 'independent' Boundary Commissions has the result of creating more seats in areas where more people live (eg in the South East), at the expense of comparatively depopulating (or less increasing population) areas (largely in the North of England) and that as a consequence it was more likely to favour the Conservative vote. Or maybe you mean to suggest the Commission acted with political partiality, perhaps under pressure? I would expect the Commission would push back on such a charge.