More in Common have similar findings from asking a different question: a broad majority for refugee protection depends on control as well as compassion. To reject refugees entirely (cruelty without compassion) pitches to a niche auction of Reform v Restore on remigration + racism, not the public

General public attitudes have toughened on hearing claims of spontaneous arrivals, so that progressives are split and conservatives against. So finding ways to protect with control + compassion is important to securing broader majority support for the principle of refugee protection in practice

There are principled and political reasons for the Labour response to the Reform plan of abolishing asylum completely to be to challenge it on decency - since most Labour voters and potential voters are sympathetic to those seeking asylum, even without the controlled + safer means they would want

Most of those considering voting Labour at next election (61%), Lib Dem (58%) or Green (60%) are sympathetic to Channel migrants - despite that lack of control - while the opposite is the case on the right: 58% of those considering the Conservatives & 69% of Reform UK considerers are unsympathetic

There has been falling sympathy for those crossing the Channel in small boats: a majority felt a fair amount of sympathy, but this is now down to 4/10 people (with 14% having a lot of sympathy) with 51% unsympathetic (and 28% having no sympathy at all - so being up for absolute refusal)

There is 73% support in Britain for the principle of refugee protection - including in the UK - while 20% are opposed to this. The peak of support was 2022 at 80% (largely because the images from Ukraine had more impact than images from the Channel that year, though boats + migration were high)

More in Common report that Reform voters are split on the complete abolition of asylum + refugee status, while other voters are opposed (but favour controlled routes for refugees over unauthorised arrivals)

The claims made on the "Vote Green, Get Illegals" website about the basis for government decision-making would itself put the policy into legal trouble (until the abolition of several laws + court oversight in the event of a majority govt seeking to attempt a wholesale revolution of the rule of law

have deleted it

Man City's defeat by Arsenal in the Community Shield is their defeat under Burnham: treating that as a trophy (not a pre-season friendly)

Standards commissioner reporting tomorrow. I'm sure it's coincidental

Reform drafted a little noticed Mass Deportation Bill. It is an Enabling Act aiming to allow the Home Secretary to disapply any law if they find it "necessary or expedient" + to direct any person to "comply or not comply with any applicable law" + to ban any court oversight of anything they do.

Reform claims 400,000 people - including anybody granted asylum in last 5 years - would face deportation. (But their deportation press releases add up to many times that number)

Reform and Restore continue to compete in an auction to abolish asylum + make unethical and impossible pledges about the scale of deportations, where both intend to target asylum seekers + refugees with status + non-Europeans with permanent status + migrants on visas on an ugly + impossible scale