Poll: half of voters unaware of ‘Boriswave'
What likelihood of a Boris Johnson comeback? Well, according to the man himself, there is, apparently, 'more chance of a baked bean winning Royal Ascot' than an improbable second premiership. Yet amid Kemi Badenoch's constant woes, there are those who still harbour hopes of Johnson 2.0. Of course, one massive stumbling block could be the so-called 'Boriswave' – the huge numbers of mass migration unleashed on the country between 2019 and 2024, with legal arrivals peaking at 906,000 in June 2023.
But now Mr S has some good news for our onetime premier. It seems that the public are rather less aware of this term than many online right-wingers. A poll by Merlin Strategy of 1,500 voters between 27 to 29 June for The Spectator finds that only 27 per cent of voters are either 'very aware' or 'quite aware' of this term. Therefore nearly three in four (73 per cent) say that they are 'not very aware' (24 per cent) or 'not at all aware' (49 per cent) of this phrase. But when this term is explained to voters, some 65 per cent say that 'I think that term is fair' – including 50 per cent of 2024 Conservative voters. Just 35 per cent of all voters think that term 'is unfair.'
Luckily for Johnson, 62 per cent of all respondents believe that 'other factors are to blame for the increase in migration' rather than Boris himself. Still, some 32 per cent blame him personally for the spike in mass migration, including 40 per cent of non-voters. Yet there is a widespread acceptance that legal migration has increased since 2019, with 42 per cent arguing it has 'increased by a lot' and 26 per cent saying it 'increased a lot.' By contrast a mere six per cent believe it has 'decreased a little' and only two per cent that it has 'decreased a lot.'
Let's see if the ball comes loose out of the back of the scrum eh?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
44 minutes ago
- Spectator
Labour MPs are still sceptical of the Welfare Bill
Liz Kendall tried to use her Commons statement on the government's U-turn on some of the disability benefit cuts to persuade her colleagues that the changes made the legislation worth supporting. Not all of them sounded very convinced: there were repeated complaints about a 'two-tier system' whereby two people with the same needs would get completely different levels of support. MPs were also concerned they were signing 'blank cheques' by voting on the bill tomorrow when full details of the changes won't be available until later in the year. And there were suspicions that the changes won't be as meaningful as ministers have suggested. The Work and Pensions Secretary gave a very forceful opening statement about the importance of reforming the welfare system, which she said was 'failing on all fronts', and was in danger of falling over entirely as the number of claimants increased. She argued that 'MPs on this side of the House have welcomed many aspects of our reforms', listing some of those changes such as the 'right to try' which will allow people to attempt to get back into work without fear of losing their benefits. She added: 'There have also been real concerns about our initial proposals. We have listened carefully, and we are making positive changes as a result.' It was the classic language of a U-turn, but it was probably also easier for Kendall to sound positive about making the changes given most of her colleagues lay the blame for the cuts at the door of the Treasury, rather than her. She said she 'fully' understood that the changes had 'caused deep and widespread anxiety amongst existing claimants'. She then explained that the new requirement for someone to score a minimum of four points on at least one aspect of the assessment for personal independence payment would only apply to new claims from November 2026, meaning no existing claimants would lose money. The Conservative front bench was critical, as you'd expect, but that was of far less interest than the reaction from Labour backbenchers. Debbie Abrahams, one of the main signatories to the reasoned amendment against the Welfare Bill, said that while she agreed the government 'must reform our social security system', she didn't understand why the review of PIP being carried out by welfare minister Stephen Timms was reporting at the same time, pointing out that: 'Surely the PIP review should determine the new process – if this is being truly co-produced with disabled people and their organisations – the review should determine both the new process, the new points and the new descriptors and we shouldn't determine it at four points at the moment.' Similarly, Meg Hillier, who tabled the amendment, thanked Kendall 'for the movement made in the last week', but added that 'it would have been good to have had those conversations earlier'. She asked for 'the rationale for settling on those four points in one category prior to the Timms review'. Kendall's argument was that the government needed to focus the benefit on those with higher need so that it was sustainable for the future. Throughout the question and answer session with MPs, Kendall kept emphasising that existing claimants would now not be affected by the changes, and that it was quite common for the benefit system to have different levels of payment which maintained old benefits. Neither argument seemed to fully satisfy Labour backbenchers, who sounded very cautious and sceptical. One of the problems is that Kendall wasn't able to explain why the four-point requirement had been designed in this particular way, underlining their suspicions that this isn't so much about reform as it is about cutting. The minister argued that it was a good thing to be able to listen and change course, which it undoubtedly is, but the question still remains of whether ministers really know why they're on this current, slightly adjusted, course anyway.
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
'Glaswegians are sick and tired of paying more to get less in return'
Perhaps Mr Franklin could also see into the future where left-wing Scottish and UK governments under the SNP and Labour have gone out of their way to ensure that more and more of our hard-earned money ends up in their pockets and not our own. In Scotland, we are taxed at a UK level but also let's not forget that the devolved parliament at Holyrood has chosen to exercise its tax powers many times. Unsurprisingly, this has led to a situation in which ordinary hard-working Scots are taxed at a higher level than others in the UK. I'm not talking about millionaires. This income tax gap between Scots and their counterparts south of the border is hitting people like retail managers, tradespeople, police officers, nurses and teachers; all of whom, and more, are taxed more than their colleagues in England. It is for the Scottish people to decide at next year's Holyrood elections if they are happy with this situation, though, in as far as I see, this extra taxation hasn't resulted in any improvement in public services such as education or health. Glaswegians are sick and tired of paying more to get less in return. I mention this as a segue into the explanation for my vote in favour of a visitor levy tax in Glasgow at last week's City Administration Committee. As a Conservative, I don't like to vote for increases in taxes or, just as bad, the introduction of new ones. However, we have a situation in Scotland where the woeful SNP administration, now nearly two decades old nationally and almost a decade in power here in Glasgow, has taxed hard-working Glaswegians to pip squeaking proportions, while at the same time delivering sub-par services and a city that looks dirty and unloved. Only in February did the same SNP in cahoots with their far-left Green colleagues increase council tax by an eye-watering 7.5%. The SNP government, in an attempt to mitigate their own raiding of local authority funding to pay for giveaways, has allowed such council tax increases but also has given councils powers to raise more funding of their own in order to pay for services. The Visitor Levy is one such scheme, allowing accommodation providers to charge a 5% tax on rooms to those choosing Glasgow as a destination, with the added bonus (for local authorities at least) that the provider will be responsible for the collection and administration of this levy. My concern has always been that already hard-pressed residents would not find themselves burdened by further taxation. The LEZ (Low Emission Zone) is proving to be a bit of a pot of gold for this administration, with the promise of a congestion charge to come. So, it seemed not unreasonable that visitors to Glasgow should pay a contribution to the amenities they enjoy while here. I received assurances that small businesses would be helped with administration difficulties, and the promise that they would be able to hold on to 1.5% of the take to help cover costs (something the anti-business Greens wanted to remove after a period). This satisfied me that the "hit" to local businesses, particularly those running small B&Bs as well as Airbnb providers, would not be significant enough to cause harm to their long-term futures with the policy being constantly reviewed. Opportunists like Reform UK will promise Glaswegians the world but they do not have a plan about how to pay for it. To Glasgow Conservatives like me, who live in the real world, the lesser of two evils was to vote for a levy on visitors, following the path of cities around the UK and the world. That way I hope we can minimise some of the damage the SNP have done to our local services and protect the wallets of already way overtaxed Glaswegians.
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Welfare U-turn will cost £2.5bn by 2030, Liz Kendall tells MPs
Liz Kendall said the costs and savings of the Government's revised welfare package would be confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the budget in the autumn. But her statement to MPs on Monday suggested the measures would save less than half the £4.8 billion the Government had expected from its initial proposals. Ms Kendall's statement confirmed the concessions announced last week in an effort to head off a major rebellion by Labour backbenchers, including protecting people who claim personal independence payments from new eligibility criteria. Responding to claims this would create a 'two-tier' benefits system, Ms Kendall said: 'I would say to the House, including members opposite, that our benefits system often protects existing claimants from new rates or new rules, because lives have been built around that support, and it's often very hard for people to adjust.' Earlier, modelling from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) suggested the Government's proposals would push 150,000 more people into poverty by 2030. The figure is down from the 250,000 extra people estimated to have been facing relative poverty after housing costs under the original proposals. Modelling published by the DWP said the estimate does not include any 'potential positive impact' from extra funding and measures to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into work. Speaking in the Commons on Monday afternoon, Ms Kendall insisted that changes to her proposals on Pip and universal credit would 'ensure no existing claimants are put into poverty'. A Number 10 spokesman also said that the DWP's poverty modelling was 'subject to uncertainty' and did not 'reflect the full picture', including investment in the health service to help people get back to work. Ministers hope the concessions will be enough to avert defeat when MPs vote on the reforms on Tuesday, although Downing Street remains braced for a substantial revolt. A 'reasoned amendment' proposed by senior Labour backbencher Dame Meg Hillier had received support from 126 Labour MPs, enough to overturn Sir Keir Starmer's majority. On Friday, Dame Meg had described the concessions as a 'workable compromise'. But Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, who negotiated the concessions alongside Dame Meg, told ITV News on Monday that the Government had rowed back on what had been negotiated. Although she described the concessions as 'good', Ms Abrahams said the rebels were 'not quite there yet' on a deal with the Government. She added: 'The actual offer that was put to one of the negotiating team wasn't actually what we thought we had negotiated on Wednesday and Thursday. There are some issues around that.' In the Commons, both Dame Meg and Ms Abrahams raised concerns that a review of Pip, to be conducted by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms, would report too late to have an effect on the changes scheduled for November 2026. Meanwhile, Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately accused the Government of making 'unfunded U-turns costing billions and welfare plans that are not worth the paper that they are written on'. She said: 'Their latest idea is a two-tier welfare system to trap people in a lifetime on benefits and deny them the dignity of work while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the ever-growing bill.' The U-turn will also cause problems for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who will now have to find a way to cover the shortfall between the amount the Government had expected to save, and the new, lower figure. And that figure could be even higher, with economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation suggesting last week the U-turn could cost in the region of £3 billion, raising the prospect of further tax rises.
