Uk politicians have already discussed with the navy how they could patrol the Channel and turn boats back. All we need is to order them to do it. The RNLI has thrown away its reputation by becoming a taxi service for law breaking migrants. They are bandits, whose first act on landing is to commit an offence against the 1971 Immigration Act - and another - I think made in 2023. They CHOOSE to do this. They need fear nothing in France. I refuse to support the RNLI any longer because of their actions. Those people deliberately set out to break into our country and the life boat men aid and abet them in the face of strong public disapproval. YOU are not typical. You seem delighted that they come and you care nothing for the people they end up competing with for housing, public services and everything else. Low economic value migration should be completely stopped and the vast majority of boat arrival people are VERY MUCH in that category.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Oh - you're making election predictions again. What does that remind me of - err - let me think...
Oh yes -
Prices of the electricity we use to charge
www.pedelecs.co.uk
Read that post. Then read the whole page and one either side and then go away quietly and stop trying to predict the future. The problem isn't that you make a mistake now and then - we all do that. The problem is that you persistently delude yourself, ignore inconvenient facts, wrongly weight evidence and arguments, and consistently come to ridiculous conclusions.
You have to differentiate between what you 'would like to be the case', from, 'what is actually the case', and you seem never to do that about politics if it doesn't suit the position you already came in with. For this reason it is pointless writing anything at length in response to your posts , because you entirely ignore everything you don't like the look of.
History will explain why Trump won and Harris lost. I am a rational optimist!Oh - you're making election predictions again. What does that remind me of - err - let me think...
Oh yes -
Prices of the electricity we use to charge
Read that post. Then read the whole page and one either side and then go away quietly and stop trying to predict the future. The problem isn't that you make a mistake now and then - we all do that. The problem is that you persistently delude yourself, ignore inconvenient facts, wrongly weight evidence and arguments, and consistently come to ridiculous conclusions.
You have to differentiate between what you 'would like to be the case', from, 'what is actually the case', and you seem never to do that about politics if it doesn't suit the position you already came in with. For this reason it is pointless writing anything at length in response to your posts , because you entirely ignore everything you don't like the look of.
Well I explained it to you several times, four months beforehand, but you wouldn't listen or even seriously consider the arguments.
In some ways the same kind of hubris was at play in the Democrat party as we see in the major parties here. They treated the common man and woman as if they were fools - and they aren't.
Those ordinary people could see that Biden was knackered and stumbling around. They knew he couldn't stay awake at important meetings and engagements and that he frequently made ridiculous mistakes when speaking or addressing important people. They knew he was being managed, but what did the politicians do? They kept on saying to the public when these matters came up that Biden was as sharp as a tack.
Then we saw the first big debate and Biden was seen to be senile. He started mumbling random words and rubbish and Trump made that remark about not knowing what Biden had said, and that Biden didn't look like he knew what he said either.
Then they still kept Biden in play for weeks after that, constantly saying he was great and he just had a virus. EVERYONE KNEW THEY WERE TAKING THEM FOR FOOLS.
People don't like that, just as in the UK the people of Kent are plastering their flag all over the bridges. It is the people doing it - not billionaires manipulating the crowds behind the scenes as you said.
You are like the democrats braying on about Biden being as sharp as a tack when you won't accept the plain facts. People are sick of being ignored and they aren't having it any more. They are not misled - they are angry. They weren't misled over BREXIT either. People knew who Boris was. They knew he would say anything but his prayers and was a practised liar. They voted for BREXIT because like me they were tired of seeing their country insulted by foreign politicians putting down the people they had sent to represent them.
Last edited:
I never said that about Biden. Harris is a better candidate than Trump. That's a fact, as shown on their debate.
Harris lost because elections are often not rational.
If that was so, why was I able to tell you four months in advance that Harris would lose? It wasn't a guess. It was entirely predictable if you just analysed the data and looked at the candidates and what had been done by the Democratic party. I knew she would lose and I told you repeatedly, but you would not / could not accept it.
Keep telling yourself that the people were misled, when you are wrong. Keep telling yourself the electors are irrational. Probably helps maintain your delusional world view.
Elections are similar to chess games. The stronger players don't always win. In elections, one candidate will manage to persuade more voters than the other, the manner he/she does that has more to do with psychology of the masses than logical thinking. There are plenty of Trump's supporters still believe that China and businesses eat the tariffs (in Trump's parlance) than they will have to pay higher prices in the shops. I watch YT Parkergetajob - in which he regularly shows how Trump's supporters misunderstood Trump's policies to the point that once the conversation is over, most of them don't know anymore why they voted for Trump in the first place.
About US presidential elections, the system results in anything but democracy. Too easy for billionaires buying both candidates. It becomes the fight of the billionaires instead of policies.
Apparently years ago when Obama was running for his first presidency, Obama made a deal with Clinton, trading Clinton's support for promising that he will supplort Clinton when her time comes. Hilary Clinton is educationally, culturally so different from the masses that too many Americans hated the likes of her. She was an easy target for psyops.
When Biden failed to make an impression in his debate with Trump, it was clear that Biden's time is up and Trump will beat Biden even to Dems voters. For days, Obama still angled for his wife to become the dems candidate. If Biden had retired earlier, the dems could have rerun a short version of their primaries. As it turned out, it could have been Gavin Newsom, the governor of California. Instead, they have Harris whose profile is too close to Hilary Clinton. Although she has less bagage than Clinton, her culture isn't that of the masses, too easy target for psyops.
Apparently years ago when Obama was running for his first presidency, Obama made a deal with Clinton, trading Clinton's support for promising that he will supplort Clinton when her time comes. Hilary Clinton is educationally, culturally so different from the masses that too many Americans hated the likes of her. She was an easy target for psyops.
When Biden failed to make an impression in his debate with Trump, it was clear that Biden's time is up and Trump will beat Biden even to Dems voters. For days, Obama still angled for his wife to become the dems candidate. If Biden had retired earlier, the dems could have rerun a short version of their primaries. As it turned out, it could have been Gavin Newsom, the governor of California. Instead, they have Harris whose profile is too close to Hilary Clinton. Although she has less bagage than Clinton, her culture isn't that of the masses, too easy target for psyops.
Russia is said to have an incredible army and yet, in the last 3 years, advanced only a little bit. If Putin was not fearful for his life if he withdrawed, peace would have been agreed. The reality is those who fund this war do like it to last as long as possible. Western Europe wants to play for time to rearm. China wants cheap oil and a weakened Russia forever. The Americans want to sell lots more weapons. Ukraine will be rebuilt better later in the EU which will then have the most formidable army. The only loser is Putin. He will milk trump for all he can get until Trump is contained by the next Congress, someone in Russia will then take Putin out.This guys view of BRICS is far too Rosy.
But the rest sounds about right
Last edited:
I was listening to a Youtube video this morning in which Dominic Cummings was talking about the impacts of AI on the way politics is done. He gave an example of how politcis will be immediately affected - information availability about what concerns voters and where they need to devote resources. He was talking about using AI to do synthesised focus groups. The traditional focus group costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time, and Cummings said AI models can do it instantly and that the outcomes are usually pretty much indistinguishable from the outputs of real focus groups.
So I went on ChatGpt and asked for focus group information on the issues that Reform is pushing.
At first the output I got seemed out of kilter with what we are now seeing. It said that Reform would run well in eastern coastal towns and the Thames Estuary and the Black Country. So I challenged it and asked about its training date cut off. This was more or less a year ago. So I asked if this would have affected and skewed the outcome. It said it would and it went off to do more research on new live data and came back with a very different result.
The latter part of the discussion after the re-think is more pertinent to the current political situation.
ChatGPT - Focus group simulation
A conversational AI system that listens, learns, and challenges
chatgpt.com
It's a good thing in politics that people talk to AI. They take the emotional out and reinforce the rational.
ChatGPT - Focus group simulation
A conversational AI system that listens, learns, and challenges
chatgpt.com
Newspapers—especially the UK’s tabloids—play a highly influential role in shaping and amplifying public sentiment around illegal migration. Here's how:
---
1. Media Framing Drives Public Opinion
A study from the University of Birmingham found that coverage of small boat crossings, often sensationalized by right-leaning newspapers, triggers a noticeable drop in support for immigration across the board—even for legal migration routes. Readers of right-wing newspapers became significantly less supportive, while left-leaning readers showed slight increases in support. On days with spikes in small boat arrivals, opinions hardened faster among those consuming that coverage .
Equally, the Byline Times reported that even though arrivals by small boats make up only 2% of all immigration, they dominate the narrative—fueling a broader crisis mindset that shapes policy discussions .
---
2. Aggressive Tabloids and Agenda-Setting
British tabloids—The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, and others—are consistently more aggressive than their European counterparts when discussing migrants:
A Migration Observatory analysis found that right-wing tabloids emphasize migrants as threats to welfare and security, while left-leaning papers tend to offer more humanitarian frames .
Headlines like “Proof We Can’t Stop Migrants” (Daily Express) and “Calais Migrant Riot…” (The Sun) are categorized as speculative and alarmist—serving more to provoke than inform .
A decade-long Migration Observatory report shows a steady shift toward narrative policing and control since 2010, with increasing media prominence of “limiting” or “controlling” migration .
---
3. Dehumanizing Language and Negative Framing
Media often employs framing tactics that dehumanize migrants:
Researchers report widespread use of hostile language—terms like “illegal,” “net,” “tackle,” and “reduce” are frequently linked to migrants in parliamentary and media discourse, amplifying restrictive sentiment .
Coverage tends to associate migrants with crime and social burden, fostering a welfare-chauvinist perspective. An analysis from the University of Liverpool found that by 2013, security-oriented “communitarian” frames overwhelmingly dominated over cosmopolitan ones—dropping from 24% to just 8% .
A parliamentary committee noted that media portrayals of asylum seekers as criminals or “threatening young men” dehumanised them—and made it easier for the public to dismiss their claims .
---
4. Amplification by Political Actors
The media doesn’t operate in a vacuum—it often reinforces political narratives, and vice versa:
Columnist Jane Martinson points to a symbiotic relationship between populist politicians (like Nigel Farage) and right-wing tabloids, which mutually fuel sensationalist coverage to mobilize public opinion .
With Reform UK’s rise, the asylum debate has skewed sharply right. Farage’s radical proposals (“Operation Restoring Justice”) gained prominence largely because media coverage elevated them—forcing Labour into defensive posture .
Editorial commentaries argue that Labour’s muted summer response allowed media narratives—especially immigration outrage—to be dominated by Reform’s agenda .
---
Summary: How Influential Are the Newspapers?
MechanismImpact on Immigration Debate
Agenda-SettingTabloids dominate coverage, making immigration a top political concern.
FramingRight-leaning media frame migration as a threat, while humanistic frames are sidelined.
Emotive LanguageFrequent use of words like “illegal,” “invaders,” “flood,” etc., dehumanize migrants.
Feedback Loop with PoliticsMedia amplifies political actors (e.g., Farage), who then drive more coverage.
Immediate Public ReactionStudies show media coverage of events (like small boats) leads to swift shifts in public opinion.
---
Conclusion
Newspapers—particularly the right-leaning tabloids—are extremely influential in whipping up the issue of illegal migration. They don’t just reflect public anxieties; they shape and amplify them through repetitive framing, sensational language, and selective coverage of high-salience events. This influence becomes particularly potent when political actors weaponize the narrative—creating a feedback loop that accelerates public concern, fuels Reform’s rise, and forces mainstream parties to respond.
---
ChatGPT - Focus group simulation
A conversational AI system that listens, learns, and challenges
chatgpt.com
I continue your chatGPT thread. Here is the projection for 2028/ 2029, in time for next elections:
Reform won't win.
| Metric | Current State | Plausible Range 2028/29 |
| Net migration (long-term, people/year) | ~431,000 (YE Dec 2024, ONS) | 200,000 – 450,000 |
| Total long-term immigration (arrivals/year) | ~948,000 (YE Dec 2024) | 600,000 – 1,050,000 |
| Asylum claims (people claiming in 12 months) | 111,000 (YE Jun 2025) | 65,000 – 140,000 |
| Small-boat crossings (people detected / year) | ~37,000 (2024 est.) | 15,000 – 80,000 |
| Asylum initial-decision backlog (stock awaiting first decision) | ~91,000 (Dec 2024) | 20,000 – 100,000 |
| Annual removals/returns (people removed) | ~9,100 (recent year) | 8,000 – 50,000 |
| Scenario | Reform UK likely seat count | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Low salience (migration fades by 2028) | 30–50 seats | Reform wins in Clacton, Thurrock, Dover-type areas; remains regional. |
| Medium salience (steady concern, not crisis) | 60–90 seats | Labour loses ground in 20–30 northern seats; Reform becomes main opposition in several coastal belts. |
| High salience (persistent “illegal migrant crisis”) | 100–150 seats | Reform entrenched in coastal south/east + northern heartlands; becomes dominant opposition to Labour, eclipsing Conservatives in seat count. |
Not really. It caveated that polls can move quickly. That's something I have mentioned before, Reform's numbers changed quickly from May (peak) then lower in June - July then seems to increase in August. It's driven by newspapers.
Starmer works on long term solutions, reduce legal migration, raise the barrier to bringing families over, reduce the availability of low wage job offers, establish legal route to refugee status and close asylyum hotels. They will produce a more sustenable long term solution for the country.
The illegal migration issue is not a big problem, we deport only about 9000 a year, that's the real illegal migrants. The rest is converted into legal migrants. Compare that 9000 to neaerly 1 million legal immigrants who arrive here each year in recent times, you can see how the problem has been hyped up.
Once the illegal migration issue is faded, the most Reform can do is to overtake the conservatives and achieve a hung parliament. I reckon we'd have a liblab coalition in 2029.
It's about time that student visas need to be scrutinised. That's the kind of measures I support although I accept that students who have graduated here should be encouraged to seek employment and stay, not to become refugees. They pay tuition fees but this country invests in their education too.
A New Vorld Order, ja?
'Treaty of the Convention on Biologocal Diversity'
"Eco-Spiritual", "Sacred Attributes of Nature" (, "Christianity responsible for all the evils done to the environment today", "*Rocks* are members of your Community", "Rivers can be regarded as your Kin"..
Do we want these crazy fruit loops running the world this way?
'Treaty of the Convention on Biologocal Diversity'
"Eco-Spiritual", "Sacred Attributes of Nature" (, "Christianity responsible for all the evils done to the environment today", "*Rocks* are members of your Community", "Rivers can be regarded as your Kin"..
Do we want these crazy fruit loops running the world this way?