www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67364745
How did anyone like this ever get into Government?
|
>> How did anyone like this ever get into Government?
Not only did she get in she was promoted and then re-appointed a week after resigning.
She's either ignorant and incompetent or so malign as to be certifiable....
The comparison with Northern Ireland beggars belief.....
|
Sunak's spokesperson has said he was unaware of her utterances.
Presumably he is teeing her up to be booted.
She is obviously aiming to be the Leader of the Opposition after the next GE.
|
She's clearly positioning herself for a leadership challeng as the leader of the right wing populist element of the party when they lose the next election and Sunak is thrown out. By all accounts she is not an unintelligent person so I wonder if she actually believes any of the rubbish she spouts. I rather suspect she's just a cynical power hungry politician like Johnson.
I thought Yvette Cooper's speech was rather good
|
>>I thought Yvette Cooper's speech was rather good
Jonathan Pie's speech was accurate.
NSFW (swearies)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dspmCsq7ghw
|
|
A bit hysterical for my taste.
|
>> A bit hysterical.....
That's the point isn't it?
|
|
Ranting doesn't really carry an argument does it? Might go down well with your supporters who already share your views but is usually counter-producdtive.
|
Standard playing to the gallery. She seems quite the politicians who knows what buttons to press and when. I think she also enjoys being the outsider of the cabinet pushing the boundaries.
I wonder if she's thinking it wouldn't be a bad thing to be sacked.
|
>> I wonder if she's thinking it wouldn't be a bad thing to be sacked.
I would say definitely.
Sunak can't win. He looks weak for not sacking her, but if he does he'll be a traitor to the right wing and members of his party. If he does sack her a few more letters will go in to Graham Brody.
He'll probably leave her while the strategy is the culture war.
The problem for me is that in the name of liberty, civil rights are being destroyed left right and centre. They are getting quite close to locking people up for their views.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 9 Nov 23 at 13:29
|
|
I thought I read that the PMs office had prior sight of her speech and only made minor mods.
|
>> I thought I read that the PMs office had prior sight of her speech and
>> only made minor mods.
Other reports say that whatever mods No10 suggested were ignored.
|
I have only just picked this news item up and can see no reason why I shouldn't be in a minority of one.
Quote
"Ms Braverman accused the force of applying a "double standard" to its policing of protests".
She claimed aggressive right-wing protesters were "rightly met with a stern response", while "pro-Palestinian mobs" were "largely ignored".
Accurate or inaccurate? The police have only got themselves to blame. The police service has - to a large degree - gone to pot since the days of Teresa May.
Police officers took sides in "The Black Lives Matter" to the extent that officers took the knee. They don't now! Why? Don't black Lives Matter any more? Once a supposedly independent and neutral organisation starts taking sides in political matters, they are on very dangerous ground. What about Stop the Oil? Why not join in there?
The Palestine/Gaza/West Bank/Israel situation. It is a ghastly business. A war crime is not justified by a war crime. I blame largely the arrogance of the British and the Americans - 1917 to 1948 - who though it would be such a good idea to re-draw the map of the Middle East. What could possibly go wrong?
|
>> Police officers took sides in "The Black Lives Matter" to the extent that officers took
>> the knee. They don't now! Why? Don't black Lives Matter any more?
Could you take sides over BLM? Did anyone seriously say Black Lives Don't Matter?
The issue both in the States and, albeit to a lesser extent, here is that there are ample instances of the Powers that Be letting black people die.
|
I'm pretty sure that the reports of hate speech and violence at these marches/demos are greatly exaggerated. reporters from the Mail, Sun, Express, Telegraph do not go to take pictures of people demonstrating peacefully.
Braverman likens the marches to the situation with the IRA in NI. She seems confused. I'm sure it's the loyalists who do the marching.
I was in NI a few years ago and met a former master of a District Orange Lodge. He had been instrumental in making the marches in his area less confrontational (for which he received some pretty nasty threats from his own side). Traditionally they had been planned with provocation in mind, through Catholic areas.
|
Almost irrespective of what one may think of SBs utterances, she is wrong. Democracy relies upon the independence of the judiciary, of which the police are a part.
Politicians in parliamentary debate, and through legislation, decide democratically the legal framework within which the police work. The police should implement that which is democratically enacted "without fear or favour".
A police state happens where the political elite direct the police. The Home Secretary has a role in holding the police to account - Mark Rowley will be looking for another job if he gets this one wrong, although I admire his resolve in standing firm.
|
Alas, unfortunately the MET have, quite rightly based on recent history. a terrible reputation. A home secretary, who has responsibility for policing, should be supporting, and fixing policing, but not by accusing them of left wing, militant, terrorist bias, which lets be honest is so far from the truth to be laughable, most of them make her look like a moderate!
As far as the march goes. Its not on Sunday, the route avoids most of the sunday sensitive areas, so all this "sacrilege" talk is tosh.
|
It is often said that the people who died fighting the world wars did so to protect our freedoms. So perhaps it's fitting that those freedoms are exercised this weekend.
If it were up to the Home Secretary, we wouldn't be allowed them.
|
Following on from 12:35, her being booted from Office appears inevitable now.
However, considering the level of governance from this shower of clowns over the past 10 years anything is possible.
I suspect she does want a job at GB News.
|
|
Apparently a barrister who worked with her described her thus “I’d call her a cxxx but she lacks the depth and warmth”.
|
Apparently even if the 'march' had been banned the current law doesn't allow for a static demo to be banned - so something would still be able to go ahead.
Also heard that is a JSO protest going on at the same time plus the Lord Major's Parade - none of these as far as I know have been labeled 'disrespectful'.
|
Not sure how a static demo happens - participants need to travel there - or do they only become participants when they arrive.
Perhaps JSO will do what Braverman cannot - glue themselves to roads and rails ensuring that members of the general public travelling to the static demo are unable to turn up!!
Perhaps Braverman could apply for day membership of JSO, glue herself to something, cause an obstruction and have the police arrest her.
|
Static as in they could all gather and protest in just one location - maybe Hyde Park, rather than a 'march' where they move from the agreed start location and then usually end up in larger location where they stop, protest, and make speeches.
|
Good description about the rules policing demos, and explaining how the march does not breach the ban threshold.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67367617
|
Of course the March should be allowed to go ahead in the absence of any evidence that it will lead to disorder.
It is a pity however that the organisers of the March can’t themselves postpone the March to avoid any possibility of confrontation. Choosing Remembrance Day is obviously going to be upsetting to many and a provocation to some.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 10 Nov 23 at 09:59
|
>> Choosing Remembrance Day is obviously going to be
>> upsetting to many and a provocation to some.
CG, are you or anyone you know offended or provoked by it being on the 11th?
Is anyone on here, particularly Duncan who I think is the 'Father of the Forum' in age terms?
I don't and I'm old enough to have had parents who lived through the second world war and Grandparents in the first. Maternal Grandmother, born in 1892, was always glued to the telly for the Festival of Remembrance and went to church on the Sunday. She might have been offended but neither of my Parents would.
This year the 11th falls on a Saturday but, other than observing two minutes silence at 11am then for as long as I can remember it's a normal working day if it falls on Monday to Friday. Even on Remembrance Sunday, to which the main ceremony has long been moved, life away from the Cenotaph and war memorials/churches goes on as normal.
Football and other sporting fixtures carry on with no thought as to respect for our Glorious Dead.
Interesting stuff on Times Radio during the night, replaying the stuff from during the day, talking about the impact of pro-Palestine demos etc on the UK's Jewish population. Some at least are genuinely intimidated by it and take 'From the River to the Sea' far more literally than I would were I attending tomorrow's march.
Is it relevant to Ms Braverman's use of the phrase hate march that her husband is of the Jewish faith?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 10 Nov 23 at 10:30
|
Football and other sporting fixtures carry on with no thought as to respect for our Glorious Dead.
You know well it's not the same. You pulled up the HS for likening it to marches in NI. Well she was closer in comparison than to your mentioning of football matches.
|
>> You know well it's not the same.
No its not the same, Its likely that most matches will ask the crowd for a period of silence because of the date.
|
>> You know well it's not the same. You pulled up the HS for likening it
>> to marches in NI. Well she was closer in comparison than to your mentioning of
>> football matches.
I was trying to make the point that, so far as most people are concerned the 11th of November is, other than observing silence for two minutes, an ordinary day. It's not in any way sacrosanct or capable of being defiled or desecrated by a protest or any other activity.
As regards comparisons with NI I'm completely lost. Does SB think the marches are like the nationalist paramilitaries? Orangemen or Apprentice Boys?
Genuinely baffled.
I could just about see a comparison with the (peaceful) marches for rights in 68/9 but not the provocative or armed stuff.
Can you explain?
|
> Can you explain?
>>
NI marches are provocative to many/some.
Pro Palestinian/anti Israeli marches are provocative, particularly on 11/11, to many/some.
|
>> Pro Palestinian/anti Israeli marches are provocative, particularly on 11/11, to many/some.
The NI stuff, particularly the Unionist/Orangemen set out to be provocative marching through Nationalist areas set out to provoke, inflame or impose. I f the pro Palestine/anti Israel demo today had marched through Golders Green or Stamford Hill I'd get the point 11/11 or not.
Is it something about the day that means Save the Whales would have been equally offensive or is it do do to do with Arabs and Israel?
Not looking for a ruck, just trying to understand.
|
>> The NI stuff, particularly the Unionist/Orangemen set out to be provocative marching through Nationalist areas
>> set out to provoke, inflame or impose. I f the pro Palestine/anti Israel demo today
>> had marched through Golders Green or Stamford Hill I'd get the point 11/11 or not.
>>
Pro Palestinian/anti Israeli marches are provocative, particularly on 11/11, to many/some. They don't need to be in golders green to be provocative to some/many.
is it do do to do with Arabs and Israel?
Yes.
I don't particularly care too much about the west bank. People have killing each other in fairly high numbers for quite some time.
However it quite clearly interests a fair number of people in the UK. The HM wasn't shouting into a vacuum when she made those comments.
|
I agree its unfortunate the organisers of the march have decided to choose this weekend. If I was a planner, I would have thought this weekend inappropriate, and likely to polarise opinion against the cause. But at the end of the day, if its legal under the legislation as home secretary, Braverman should be expected to know that.
I fear now however, she has lit a fuse, and it may turn nasty.
|
|
The Royal British Legion supports the march, the right to protest being one of the freedoms our forces fought for.
|
|
To be honest, I don't see the problem with a Saturday march. For services personnel, Remembrance Sunday is the day of remembrance. 'Celebrating' 11th November is a relatively new thing, driven by the media.
|
Well to mop this up, it was a big one, 300k people. Seems to have largely passed off peacefully. The Agro seems to have come from the EDL / extreme right wing.
Now is that because the met police targeted them specifically as SB suggests? Because SB poked their nest? Some might say they represent her views and emboldened them
Either way she is toast.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 11 Nov 23 at 23:00
|
I really don't think the EDL types would have organised the cenotaph 'protection' if SB had kept quiet. Whether she's dim, cynical, scheming or just evil is hard to say. But the idea that the Met has a left wing bias is laughable.
The pro Palestinian/ceasefire march was peaceful. Had it not been, with 300.000+ participants, there would have been carnage.
Shirley she must get her marching orders this week. At this stage one of she or Sunak has to go, and I don't see Sunak resigning just yet.
Then the games will begin. It would be funny had the country not gone down the toilet with the Conservative party. Thanks to all who enabled them.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 12 Nov 23 at 11:55
|
My rugby club's opposition lost 9 players yesterday - all coppers who had to work on Saturday.
I am old enough to remembers coppers who paid of their mortgages with the overtime they made from the miners' strikes!
That's probably one of those - what do they call it? Ah! Urban myth, that's the phrase.
|
>> Shirley she must get her marching orders this week. At this stage one of she
>> or Sunak has to go, and I don't see Sunak resigning just yet.
I doubt anyone is going anywhere. They all realise their tenure is now limited to the next election, where most be chucked out.
>> Then the games will begin.
What we have now is long term manoeuvring of power bases on the assumption they will get in some time in the future. Trouble with the tory party is that when they fail, they have the assumption they were not right wing enough. Alas Labour is the same the other way.
Of course it leaves the moderate middle ground open, where the path to power lies. Why can they never see that?
|
Sunak's like Elvis. Caught in a trap. So he might freeze, but I doubt it. Hard to say when they all have delusions of competence.
If she gets away with it she could get worse.
|
Supreme Court decision on Ruanda on Wednesday. Cabinet reshuffle predicted in couple of weeks. If Ruanda decision goes against Government that’s another nail in Home Secretary’ coffin.
There is talk of bringing back Priti Patel ………..
|
There is talk of bringing back Priti Patel ………..
>>
Now seen by some as a moderate...
|
>> There is talk of bringing back Priti Patel ………..
Of those I've seen mooted the most welcome (or least unwelcome) would be Gove. He's got the skills to manage a big department and did a good job cleaning up after Grayling at Justice.
Oliver Dowden? maybe. Robert Jenrick hasn't the political or intellectual weight and has been sacked previously for code breaches vis a vis Richard Desmond.
The problem is that Boris purged the party of many suitable people over Brexit.
|
>> The problem is that Boris purged the party of many suitable people over Brexit.
>>
...corrected the typo for you.....
|
Trouble with the tory party is that
>> when they fail, they have the assumption they were not right wing enough.
Agreed, I know a socially a couple of signed up members and I'm on a couple of forums that has some Con party members and that is very much the thought. The PM is of often described as 'a wet' and someone who could be in the LB or Labour. Not seen as a proper Conservative.
>>
>> Of course it leaves the moderate middle ground open, where the path to power lies.
>> Why can they never see that?
>>
Too much time in caucus/groups in the HoC, they just become echo chambers and they believe their own propaganda.
|
|
Sacked according to the Graun's newsfeed on my phone.
|
|
Confirmed by The BBC "Prime Minister Rishi Sunak asked Braverman to leave the government - not just the Home Office and the post of home secretary, but the government entirely. And she accepted"
|
Cleverley as Home Sec.....
|
>> Enter David Cameron……
>>
Down to replace cleverly at the FO.
|
>> Cameron is in.
>>
the Lords?
|
"In" - as in the cabinet as Foreign Secretary, as suggested in the post I was replying to.
Comprende?
|
>> "In" - as in the cabinet as Foreign Secretary, as suggested in the post I
>> was replying to.
>>
>> Comprende?
>>
Sorry. I was too subtle for you.
Let me explain. Cameron is neither a peer nor an MP. He will, I guess, take a peerage rather than fight a by election as an MP.
|
>> Sorry. I was too subtle for you.
>>
>> Let me explain. Cameron is neither a peer nor an MP. He will, I guess,
>> take a peerage rather than fight a by election as an MP.
Didnt see that coming I must confess. I can see why, Cameron is the only one (out of a sorry bunch) who carries any respect in or out of the country. I quite like Cameron, he appears sensible, pragmatic, carries no entrenched politcal dogma, and treats those around him with a bit of respect (in public)
|
Have they literally run out of people to appoint?
I have never heard Cleverly answer a question or even express a meaningful opinion of his own.
The prime minster's official spokesman said: "This reshuffle will give the prime minister a united team to deliver the change this country needs for the long term." 13 sorry years and this is what they arrive at? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
There will now follow a row over Cameron's suitability for the HoL, presumably, given his lucrative spell with Greensill and attempts to insinuate them into the government COVID loan scheme.
|
Let me explain. Cameron is neither a peer nor an MP. He will, I guess,
>> take a peerage rather than fight a by election as an MP.
>>
He's being made a Baron asap. Reported on sky
|
Cameron is an electoral judgement - the Tory right epitomised by the Braverman philosophy had as much chance of electoral success as the 2019 Corbynistas had of winning government.
I doubt it will change the outcome at the next general election but may turn a rout into a loss.
|
>> Cameron is an electoral judgement - the Tory right epitomised by the Braverman philosophy had
>> as much chance of electoral success as the 2019 Corbynistas had of winning government.
>>
>> I doubt it will change the outcome at the next general election but may turn
>> a rout into a loss.
That might have been a better plan had they brought back one of the better people Johnson turfed out. Cameron is soiled goods, sleaze-tainted, and ran away after his referendum mess.
|
|
That was 2018. The Cameron era now looks like the good old days.
|
Yvette Cooper:
"Congratulations to James Cleverly on being appointed Home Secretary
The 8th Conservative Home Secretary in 8 years".
I don't know whether that includes Braverman having two goes.
I sincerely hope we are seeing the fall of the Conservative party, but I'm not sanguine. Cockroaches have been around for 320 million years.
|
|
Coffey was actually deputy PM when Truss resigned. I don't recall ever hearing anything about her stepping into the breach.
|
Look, people.
This is the dying embers of a series of Tory administrations. It's no good moaning about it, you* voted for them.
Exactly the same thing happened with the sequence of Labour governments culminating in the General Election of 2010.
I keep saying it - you voted for them - you have only got yourselves to blame.
Don't worry, next year, we will have a new government, almost certainly a Labour government and the whole sorry, sad cycle will start all over again.
The * means you - the British electorate.
|
>> Look, people.
>>
>> This is the dying embers of a series of Tory administrations. It's no good moaning
>> about it, you* voted for them.
Somebody did.
>>
>> Exactly the same thing happened with the sequence of Labour governments culminating in the General
>> Election of 2010.
Er...no. This lot have been brazenly corrupt and dishonest. Unprecedented in my lifetime at least. Both major parties have been creative with borrowing, but only the Conservatives pocketed it or distributed it by the millions to their friends. Under Labour we had far better public services.
>> Don't worry, next year, we will have a new government, almost certainly a Labour government
>> and the whole sorry, sad cycle will start all over again.
I don't know how it will play out. So far, the other parties do not seem to have adopted the utterly crooked standards of the Conservatives.
In fairness to the Tories, no previous Tory government has been nearly as bad as this one.
I would like to see a much more socialist government that we are going to get. But it has not escaped my notice that not enough people want to vote for that, which is why I have not been busy trying to depose Starmer. Nevertheless, the homeless, needy and dispossessed can expect a much better deal from Labour than they are getting now.
Sunak (or his successor) will say that Labour can't manage the finances. The facts do not support the idea that the Conservatives can, that's clear. I hope that doesn't go unnoticed.
The sad part of it is that I might well not live to see all the broken stuff fixed.
Don't tell me they are all the same.
|
>> >> Exactly the same thing happened with the sequence of Labour governments culminating in the
>> General
>> >> Election of 2010.
>>
>> Er...no. This lot have been brazenly corrupt and dishonest. Unprecedented in my lifetime at least.
Well, this sequence of Tory governments didn't invade Iraq. That went well, didn't it?
This sequence of Tory governments didn't take us into Afghanistan. That went well, didn't it?
Or perhaps human lives matter less than money to you?
|
You'd have to hunt hard now to find anyone who thinks getting involved in Iraq was a good thing.
Could you remind us how the Tories voted on it in 2003?
So far as I remember somebody called Robin Cook led the principled opposition to the invasion and resigned to do so. He wasn't a Tory.....
Afghanistan, in the aftermath of 9/11, was pretty much universally approved.
It went titzup much later largely due to decisions under the Trump regime in the US.
Both had the problem of the invaders not having a plan for what happened next once they'd broken everything.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 13 Nov 23 at 16:42
|
He wasn't a Tory....
Nor were of course his 254 colleagues who vote in favour
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67364745
>>
>> How did anyone like this ever get into Government?
How do people like that even get selected for a safe seat? I've used the term 'accidental MP' for people like Fiona Onasanya or Claudia Webbe but they were picked in hurry. Same with red wallers who were never expected to be elected.
Coffey though was selected for Suffolk Coastal in time for 2010 succeeding John Gummer who announced he was standing down well in advance.
Watching her as DWP Minister in front of the Select Committee was toe curlingly embarrassing.
|
After 13 years the Tories have accumulated a lot of scandalous baggage. That Labour will somehow be different is doubtful. Politicians are hungry for power (opposition=impotence) and will do all they can (a) to get power and (b) retain it.
Becoming a distant memory but reflect on some of the Blair Brown era which included:
- the cupboard is bare - Liam Byrne letter to his successor at the Treasury
- dodgy dossier - weapons of mass destruction
- Peter Mandelson - aka Prince of Darkness for good reasons
- involvement in Afghanistan
- PFI deals
- "no more boom or bust" Gordon presided over a ruinous financial meltdown
- Robin Cook lasted only weeks as Foreign Secretary - resigned when an affair became public
- presided over parliamentary expenses scandal
- Cherie Blair property dealings
I doubt Starmer will be any different. I believe him to be a decent well intentioned person. But he has already been flexible on policy - eg: nationalisation, NHS outsourcing, ban tuition fees, £28bn green pledge, wealth taxes, income tax increases etc.
He is simply playing in the same political game - being economical and selective in the language he uses to avoid alienating any potential voters or the left wing of the Labour party.
|
|
Didn't Gordie also sell all our gold at cut rates?
|
>> Didn't Gordie also sell all our gold at cut rates?
He also removed the tax advantage pension funds had, resulting in poorer pensions for many.
|
>> >> Didn't Gordie also sell all our gold at cut rates?
>>
>> He also removed the tax advantage pension funds had, resulting in poorer pensions for many.
Both of those things can be made to look as though they were simple missteps or politically motivated robbery but in reality the underlying facts make them more involved.
|
Lord Taylor of Blackburn
Lord Truscott
Both done for trying to get laws changed in return for a financial contribution. Is that not corruption?
|
Come on Terry, how bad do they have to get? He's appointed McVey as minister for 'common sense'. That's positively satirical.
How do you maintain the delusion that this is normal?
|
>He's appointed McVey as minister for 'common sense'...
So he's sacked Larry as well?!
|
|
I treat all the parties with equal contempt distrust and scorn until they fall below the very low bar of expectations I have of them, which the tories have managed to do with a shed load of headroom to spare.
|
Small consolation but at least there is the comedy value.
It has occurred to Johnson that he could have been ennobled and raised to the peerage. Allegedly.
Dear Mogg
I am livid that Pigshead Cameron has got the job. What with my Ukrainian leadership khaki fatigues, and fetching tousled hair it was made for me. I could have done it atop a tank. Pah!
In geranium doldrum
Boris
|
I know this has been touched on further up the chat but today the radio is calling DC Lord Cameron - if this means he is a Lord then afaik he won't be able to address the HoC or even go into the place - if correct how can we have a cabinet minister who cannot be questioned over the decisions he makes?
|
It's unusual, but has happened quite a bit in the past. His department will be represented by cabinet colleagues or 2nd in command, and he can appear at committees in the house. The chamber is just used to insult one another anyway and has no practical purpose. He can also be questioned by labour peers in the upper house.
The whole peers and commoners thing is outdated tosh anyway
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 14 Nov 23 at 07:41
|
Well yes. More or less what he said.
What about the monarchy? Shouldn't we get rid of that first? A moments thought will tell you that it's a ludicrous concept.
|
>> I know this has been touched on further up the chat but today the radio
>> is calling DC Lord Cameron - if this means he is a Lord then afaik
>> he won't be able to address the HoC or even go into the place -
It's not that big an issue. It happened in one of the smaller ministries a few years ago, then again in the early 2000s twice.
Fairly rare but not unprecedented.
|
>> It's not that big an issue. It happened in one of the smaller ministries a
>> few years ago, then again in the early 2000s twice.
>>
>> Fairly rare but not unprecedented.
That exactly. It's a long time - eighties - since one of the so called Great Offices of State was held by a Minister in the Lords. That time as well it was the FO under Peter Carington - Lord Carrington - in Thatcher's first term. Peter Mandelson came back into Labour's cabinet in the Brown era too as a Member of the Upper House having vacated his Commons seat to be an EU Commissioner. .
The Speaker made a statement yesterday about how Lord Cameron might be able to account to the Commons. In effect he said we've done it before and it's no great sweat to work out how to do it now.
Cameron can appear before its Committees. If we're honest rather than being fetishistic about the House itself that's where accountability is done on the ground anyway.
See my comment earlier about Dr. Coffey.
The FO is not, for the most part, an office where activity gives rise to massive controversy or big Parliamentary Bills. I doubt you could run the Home Office or the DWP so effectively with the Minister in the Lords but if Cameron's the right man, and from the available field he probably is, I don't think it's a massive problem.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 14 Nov 23 at 09:45
|
She's published her letter to Sunak in X:
twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1724465401982070914/photo/1
Stiletto in multiple times:
|
|
Spiteful bunch aren't they, whether or not there is any substance. They are, after all, and allegedly, on the same side.
|
...if Carlsberg did hissy fits.....
She patently doesn't have the intelligence and self-awareness to realist that almost all of what she's written reflects just as badly on her as she intends it to do on Sunak.
Odious woman.
|
You're right T&E. Damn good diatribe, but deluded. Incredibly narcissistic. Other than applause from 50 or 60 far right and super brexity Tory MPs I don't think she'll achieve much. Possibly she thinks the members will put her in as leader but even if they did it would never fly with the MPs.
She's still ranting about the march even after it turned out to be about as disorderly as a church picnic, apart from the EDL types that she herself provoked.
|
|
I'm guessing that's her off the PM's Christmas card list.
|
|
...I take it that you didn't get last year's, then?
|
Oh, this is the good stuff. Not as good as a Morecambe and Wise Christmas Special but still good entertainment.
Pass the popcorn.
|
|
Sorry, this is as about as nasty as Winnie the Poo stories compared to Nadine Dorries recent articles about her lack of peerage. Dont these people realise wot they writ now will be used to beat them later if they try a comeback?
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 14 Nov 23 at 18:41
|
|
To be fair, she (and probably Nadine, but less so) do have a fair lump of supporters of their own - see the Twitter comments under Suella's letter, quite a few think she's PM material.
|
|
I think this is the start of a move against the PM. Expect more stuff from her and her supporters.
|
Dont these people realise wot they writ
>> now will be used to beat them later if they try a comeback?
That's a tomorrow problem.
|
I can't help but think that were the Tory right, possibly headed by SB, to become dominant they would crash Tory prospects for the next decade - they are simply unelectable nutters.
Although from the opposite side of the political spectrum, the far left policies of the Corbynistas had a similar impact in 2019 - a vote for "not Jezza" as much as an endorsement of Boris.
|
|
The unelectable nutter is doing O.K in the U.S.
|
|
Govt defeated in Rwanda appeal.
|
>> Govt defeated in Rwanda appeal.
Just reading that now. Unanimous verdict.
|
|
Sunak did well in PMQs. Starmer gave a very lacklustre performance
|
|
Yvette Cooper, replying to the Home Secretary's statement on the Rwanda judgement suggests that Cleverly is not in favour and had previously described the concept as "batshit".
|
>> Yvette Cooper, replying to the Home Secretary's statement on the Rwanda judgement suggests that Cleverly
>> is not in favour and had previously described the concept as "batshit".
Certainly as Foreign Secretary he said he' said he was against unsubscribing from ECHR. Will he reverse ferret? I doubt it, they are pretty well timed out on this now.
I wonder where Sunak will veer next. A month ago he rejected 30 years of failed politics and pledged a new way. Now he's exhumed Cameron.
|
>> Certainly as Foreign Secretary he said he' said he was against unsubscribing from ECHR. Will
>> he reverse ferret? I doubt it, they are pretty well timed out on this now.
Cleverley's replies to various red wall/right wing Tories wanting to ignore the Supreme Ct (30p Lee) or withdraw from ECHR - several others are well measured. The phrase 'no silver bullet' has been deployed repeatedly.
Guardian reports some speculation that some Tories believe the Rwanda deal is a dead end with no possible way out and abandon the idea in favour of negotiating return agreements with EU etc....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 15 Nov 23 at 15:02
|
What tint are your spectacles? Must be different to mine!
That said Starmer could and should have humiliated Sunak more effectively in the part I've just heard on the Rwanda decision. I find him hard work to listen to.
Sunak is banging the drum on inflation which everybody knows was expected to halve itself anyway.
The last poll taken after Bravermans sacking has Labour 30 points in front, so maybe his modest oratory skills don't matter that much.
|
I stick by my prediction of about 12 months ago that nobody is going to Rwanda. Not that it matters because it was only ever going to be a 100 or two. There are currently 136,000 in the queue.
It's despicable of Sunak to suggest that the ECHR is blocking this. It's our own laws, and the fact that the Home Office has not done the job properly for all the fuss and money spent. They have no legal agreement with Rwanda, only a Memorandum of Understanding with them. Sunak is now saying he will change the law and negotiate a treaty to ensure that Rwanda doesn't just fire them off to a nearby country as they apparently did under the scheme with Israel, which we were given as the tested model.
The UNHCR treaties are also a problem. Not sure if he has mentioned those.
Once again the right wing nutters are bawling that the court has "blocked" the will of the government. Equally as despicable as blaming the convention of which the UK was a founding member. The court has simply looked at the applicable laws and declared it illegal. Certain of them clearly don't understand the separation of powers (which does not exist in Rwanda).
Furthermore, I think the government misled us on this. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who thought that successful applicants to the UK would be shipped off to Rwanda to provide them with the asylum granted to them. Apparently not. The Supreme Court spelt this out - they will simply be redirected to Rwanda to apply for asylum, where of course it might be refused. The Courts enquiries bore that out, Rwanda has refused claims e.g. from Afghan refugees who would normally get through a UK application.
It's a complete shambles, cooked up, surprise surprise, by Johnson and Patel. And in two years of fighting this, they and their successors have conspicuously failed to do the job properly. I assume the reason for the MoU is because they couldn't get a watertight contract. We'll find out.
At the absolute best this is a gimmick.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 15 Nov 23 at 19:09
|
|
I wonder if there is a plan by anyone to solve this. Perhaps there isn't any solution to numbers of asylum seekers coming to the UK.
|
Give them jobs picking sprouts?
Someone else paid for them to be born and educated them - use them as an economic benefit not a drain
|
|
Just paid 95p for an excuse of a cauliflower in Sainsburys!!
|
>> Just paid 95p for an excuse of a cauliflower in Sainsburys!!
Got a perfect looking cauli from Sainsbugs last week. Ate some last night. The most tasteless cauli I have ever had. Maybe I've got Covid!
|
>> I wonder if there is a plan by anyone to solve this. Perhaps there isn't
>> any solution to numbers of asylum seekers coming to the UK.
Net *legal* immigration last year to quote somebody on BBCQT was 600,000. Boat folk were about 40,000 IIRC.
Fewer come here for asylum than to the average UK country, population weighted. It's pretty clear that migration (legal and illegal) to Europe from troubled areas is more likely to go up than down and climate change will only exacerbate that (probably already is doing).
If Sunak really wants to think long term he could think on that, and encourage India/China etc to cut carbon emissions.
Back to the topic - apparently they would have needed to get their law-changing Rwanda bill to the Lords by 17 November (today) to get it passed before an election is due, should the Lords choose to hold it up, which they could do for 13 months. Presumably this is why Braverman says they should sit over Christmas.
My chances of being correct that nobody will go to Rwanda have just improved.
Was it somebody on here who suggested that the government could solve the XL-Bully-ban difficulties by changing the law to declare XL Bullies safe?
I quite like the sprout picking idea. But probably less of a deterrent than Rwanda.
|
Have you seen the state of the fields this time of year when vegetables are being harvested?
Mud baths.
|
>> Have you seen the state of the fields this time of year when vegetables are
>> being harvested?
>> Mud baths.
>>
There have been sporadic shortage of winter veg these past weeks. At one time Cauliflower became unobtainable for a week or two.
|
Yep the past two weekly shops have had very little green veg in them - now I know why - no brocalli or nero - herbs, spinach and toms from Spain seem to be ok though.
|
>>If Sunak really wants to think long term he could think on that, and encourage India/China etc to cut carbon >>emissions
What influence do you think he's got there?
|
|
We could always threaten them with a gunboat if they don’t listen.
|
|
I was that we should be doing our bit rather than pandering to big oil and reneging on decarbonisation commitments to please the climate deniers and culture warriors.
|
Another Palestine demo today, 100k attendees expected.
Cleverly meanwhile is blowing cool(er) over Rwanda:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/25/james-cleverly-frustrated-with-fixation-government-rwanda-immigration-policy
Not the be all and end all he says. Other ways to 'Stop the Boats he says.
Ground being prepared for a tactical retreat?
|
|
Is not the US approach under Biden achieving what everyone wants i.e a pause in the fighting that will hopefully end in a more substantial ceasefire?
|
|
...Cleverley's new policy is to threaten the "boat people" with the ultimate sanction by sending them to Stockton, which is apparently more sh!t than Rwanda....
|
>> ...Cleverley's new policy is to threaten the "boat people" with the ultimate sanction by sending
>> them to Stockton, which is apparently more sh!t than Rwanda....
The words complained of are audible albeit not clearly.
There must be a camera facing the government front bench. The one that shows Rish! while he's at the dispatch box. In principle we should be able to see whose lips moved.
Was it not on/focussed or is there some reason why its image cannot be used?
|
>> The words complained of are audible albeit not clearly.
MPs shouldn't swear.
But, I don't think we should waste time trying to find out who said what. It's trivia.
Article by Laura Kuenssberg (spelling?)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67530919
Last edited by: Duncan on Sat 25 Nov 23 at 13:54
|
>> MPs shouldn't swear.
>>
>> But, I don't think we should waste time trying to find out who said what.
>> It's trivia.
Well up to a point Lord Copper....
If Cleverly has returned to the House, admitted he got 'carried away' and apologised for the discourtesy it would be water, trivia if you like, under the bridge.
However he firstly denied using the s*** word at all and then changed tack and said he meant the Member asking the question was a s*** MP. He's now in the frame for lying...
|
Too late to edit:
I'd assumed LK's article was about Cleverley's failure to bite his tongue. Actually it's a sensible and interesting account of how the net immigration numbers play out.
|
>He's now in the frame for lying...
SHOCK, HORROR - READ ALL ABOUT IT!
Parliament to investigate Home Secretary for lying when he says that Stockton isn't a s***hole!
|
>> SHOCK, HORROR - READ ALL ABOUT IT!
>>
>> Parliament to investigate Home Secretary for lying when he says that Stockton isn't a s***hole!
I raise you Scunthorpe....
|
Should we be celebrating honesty and transparency irrespective of whether it relates to the MP, constituency, or both..
He has an opinion clearly stated. You may or may not agree with his view.
Question: is explicit honesty is a better way to communicate than the usual politically acceptable half truths and innuendo usually used by politicians.
|
|
Those Co. Durham ex-mining towns don't have much to offer.
|
>> Cleverly meanwhile is blowing cool(er) over Rwanda:
'Stop the Boats' has consumed massive amounts of financial and political capital to no practical avail.
The 40k or so per annum arriving that way are almost 'de minimis' compared to the equally politically fraught number arriving legally.
Surely they're not being used, dead cat style, as a diversion;
Oh look; people in dinghies
|
|
If it worked as a diversion before, I don't think it is now. The gov's own MPs seem to be making quite alot of noise about it.
|
|
There's a joke to be made there somewhere, Jenrick/generic, but I can't quite crystallise it. I find him a bit creepy. He's certainly crawly.
|
Crumbs, you're seeing it everywhere. Surely having separate facilities for every person in detention would cost rather a lot? Then Manatee would go off on one about the govt squandering money - or maybe not, seeing as it's another stick to beat the govt with.
I really do not support this government but finding fault in everything they do is becoming a bit wearisome.
|
I'm not sure there's enough empty barrack blocks and hotel rooms for everyone to have their own room and toilet and at what cost?
Although the gov can't magic them out of thin air, I do think they've made a rod for their own back in some ways. The backlog is very and takes forever to process the claims. At 17k AS have gone missing, the HO has no idea where they are. We, as country, have a pretty high success rate in success applications for asylum compared to other European countries. Probably not the beall and endall, but is a factor.
|
>> The backlog is very and takes
>> forever to process the claims. At 17k AS have gone missing, the HO has no
>> idea where they are. We, as country, have a pretty high success rate in success
>> applications for asylum compared to other European countries. Probably not the beall and endall, but
>> is a factor.
I'm trying to follow the story of the 17k but cannot get there. Have they left the UK, disappeared into the black economy or is it just the HO hasn't logged their forwarding address?
The performance of the Home Office Perm Sec and his deputy in front of the Home Affairs Committee was toe curling. Whether that reflects on their professionalism or the perils of defending the indefensible in terms of what their Masters allow isn't clear.
The cost, from Dungeness to Kigali, for an average Asylum Seeker shouldn't be difficult to work out. Neither should the comparison with Dungeness to (say) Glasgow.
There'll be caveats and assumptions for sure but they're footnotes on the methodology.
Getting to a number was like drawing teeth.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 1 Dec 23 at 10:53
|
I'm trying to follow the story of the 17k but cannot get there. Have they
>> left the UK, disappeared into the black economy or is it just the HO hasn't
>> logged their forwarding address?
They've no clue, probably a bit of all three, mainly the second option if i had to bet.
>> The performance of the Home Office Perm Sec and his deputy in front of the
>> Home Affairs Committee was toe curling. Whether that reflects on their professionalism or the perils
>> of defending the indefensible in terms of what their Masters allow isn't clear.
>>
The impression i got was they looked hopeless. Completely out of their depth in some basic questions. 'My first committee meeting, how not to act'
|
>> Crumbs, you're seeing it everywhere. Surely having separate facilities for every person in detention would
>> cost rather a lot? Then Manatee would go off on one about the govt squandering
>> money - or maybe not, seeing as it's another stick to beat the govt with.
Just another post on somebody else's thread.
I'm not saying that every Asylum Seeker should have a single room with private facilities. On the whole, hostel type accommodation would be suitable.
There will however be cases where people are vulnerable - a significant cohort amongst refugees - need what, in the outside world, would be called reasonable adjustments. Even then it needn't mean the royal suite - just appropriate sharing.
The fact we're in this mess with hotels etc is down to a failure to process claims properly and quickly. That, along with what's described in the article, is deliberate. If the process is slow, unpleasant and draggy the theory is that people will stay in France. It's also performative for the backbenches, the wider Tory party and its allies in the media who lap this stuff up.
For all Sunak's now moaning that he inherited a (legal) immigration problem from Johnson these guys have had their hands on the levers since 2010.
|
That, along with what's described in the article, is deliberate.
>> If the process is slow, unpleasant and draggy the theory is that people will stay
>> in France. It's also performative for the backbenches, the wider Tory party and its allies
>> in the media who lap this stuff up.
>>
I don't get the impression it's deliberate in that sense but is more deliberate in the gov don't want to pay for sufficiently trained and experienced people to process their claims. This is the natural outcome.
I don't think anyone is lapping up the gov's performance on this issue. It's a vote loser, they get hammered in the press, the backbenchers get hassle about it which then goes up the chain.
Mind you no party has any real plan, so maybe there isn't a solution.
|
>> I don't think anyone is lapping up the gov's performance on this issue. It's a
>> vote loser, they get hammered in the press, the backbenchers get hassle about it which
>> then goes up the chain.
I'm not so sure. They've made 40,000 Asylum Seekers, a number which is not actually massive in a historical context, into an invasion. There are people out there speaking of our country being invaded like they're coming ashore D-Day style. It's given them an opportunity to portray the ECHR as a 'foreign court' rather than something we're tied to by treaties and largely founded.
Without doubt that pulls the same strings as the Leave Campaign did with people who live by the headlines.
Meanwhile 800,000 walk in with permission and becuase, frankly, we need them.
|
>> >> I'm not so sure. They've made 40,000 Asylum Seekers, a number which is not actually
>> massive in a historical context, into an invasion. There are people out there speaking of
>> our country being invaded like they're coming ashore D-Day style. It's given them an opportunity
>> to portray the ECHR as a 'foreign court' rather than something we're tied to by
>> treaties and largely founded.
>>
I'm not sure what to say to that. It's a delibrate action to make themselves unpopular on purpose? I'm not sure anyone really believes that.
>>Meanwhile 800,000 walk in with permission and becuase, frankly, we need them.
I think half are students and their dependents. I suppose it keeps the university sector going. Although how many dissappear or actually complete their course is open to debate.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 1 Dec 23 at 16:13
|
>> I'm not sure what to say to that. It's a delibrate action to make themselves
>> unpopular on purpose? I'm not sure anyone really believes that.
They're way beyond 'unpopular' with me whatever they do.
My old YHA cycle touring mates Graham and Gordon OTOH are slaves to the Mail's POV and lap it up.
|
They're way beyond 'unpopular' with me whatever they do.
>>
>> My old YHA cycle touring mates Graham and Gordon OTOH are slaves to the Mail's
>> POV and lap it up.
>>
I wasn't so much talking individually, more as a plan. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick, but your comment seemed to suggest that letting the asylum situation get to where it is a delibrate policy so then the gov can talk about an invasion, leave the echr but then don't leave.
It doesn't make much sense to me.
|
>> I wasn't so much talking individually, more as a plan. Perhaps I got the wrong
>> end of the stick, but your comment seemed to suggest that letting the asylum situation
>> get to where it is a delibrate policy so then the gov can talk about
>> an invasion, leave the echr but then don't leave.
>>
>> It doesn't make much sense to me.
IMHO...
The politics is, in the way they're doing it, sort of individual.
I'm a lost cause for the present lot. Always was, always will be. Graham and Gordon would vote Tory whatever.
There's a cohort in between those positions for whom 'bashing Asylum Seekers' and hitting the Brexity notes around ECHR are fruit for plucking.
|
> There's a cohort in between those positions for whom 'bashing Asylum Seekers' and hitting the
>> Brexity notes around ECHR are fruit for plucking.
>>
Yeah that's the bit i don't get. To me they are the exact people they are turning away from the gov because of the govs inability to deal with this issue.
But I accept I might be wrong.
|
>>Mind you no party has any real plan, so maybe there isn't a solution.
It's one of those things that has become unmentionable. The fact that life was much less aggro in the EU than it is now with the pig's ear of a Brexit that we got, and sooner or later we will have to talk about undoing it, is another.
Long term the migration trend is up. Mobility is greater, the drivers for movement such as as malign dictators, wars and facism of various kinds are increasing, democracy is on the retreat. A pragmatic solution is regard human rights as a luxury and start denying them to people who face persecution.
|
It's one of those things that has become unmentionable. The fact that life was much
>> less aggro in the EU than it is now with the pig's ear of a
>> Brexit that we got, and sooner or later we will have to talk about undoing
>> it, is another.
I don't think this is an issue that makes much difference in or out the EU. I don't think the people coming here care one way or the other.
|
>>
>> I don't think this is an issue that makes much difference in or out the
>> EU. I don't think the people coming here care one way or the other.
I did not link Brexit to migration although there might well be a link to the make up.
My point on migration is that while it might fluctuate the trend is up both from asylum and economic migrants and for that matter from our own demographic needs.
|
My point on migration is that while it might fluctuate the trend is up both
>> from asylum and economic migrants and for that matter from our own demographic needs.
>>
Indeed, it's in the gov powers to shape. Even withdrawing from international treaties, even if seen as undesirable, are within it's ability.
|
Over the last 10 years net migration has averaged 300k pa. It fell (unsurprisingly) in 2020 and 2021 (Covid, Brexit) and the high current figures are to some extent a simple bounce back.
The way net migration is calculated is crass - a set of assumptions based on several independent sets of data. It is a best estimate only but all we have to work on!
That 300k extra people need some infrastructure seems to have escaped government. Hospitals, schools, etc. In particular house building has barely kept pace with increasing population numbers, let alone replacing old and time expired housing stock.
Floating accommodation and Rwanda will not solve the problem - IMHO they may serve only to dissuade some from coming.
Very explicit policies are needed - not weasel words from all political players which add neither clarity or intent. I make no judgement whether "illegal" immigration is good or bad - merely that there is no evidence anywhere that the debate will be solved.
|
Not sure where you live Terry but around here (and I hear similar from distant friends) there has been a massive increase in the size of our town, and corresponding massive new developments all around, which are part of a plan for more houses which was driven by the government, presumably with an eye to increasing requirements for housing for immigrants as well as the increasing population.
It can many years from concept to completion of house building - finding the land, making sure no wildlife will be upset, never mind local nimby residents who do all they can to delay plans, then actually doing the building. The new estates round here are mostly fairly attractive and include new green areas and play facilities (not especially useful for those of us with no youngsters!) and have included a couple of new schools and a new "bypass" road. I believe this has mostly been funded by the property developers (ultimately the purchasers I suppose) as local and national government seems not to have the money to pay for massive changes.
As has been stated before the approval process seems to currently be the bottleneck which is giving rise to the need for huge amounts of short term accommodation.
|
>> Over the last 10 years net migration has averaged 300k pa. It fell (unsurprisingly) in
>> 2020 and 2021 (Covid, Brexit) and the high current figures are to some extent a
>> simple bounce back.
I think that's right. 2022/3 will, I suspect be an outlier. There have been significant numbers admitted from Ukraine and to a lesser extent Hong Kong under humanitarian schemes. Undoubtedly both students and workers for Health/Social care etc will be on the bounceback after Covid.
I think there are good reasons to exclude students from net migration unless/until they successfully settle for work etc. From what I've seen about hard cases going wrong they're on a short leash, reported on by the Unis and drop kicked home without ceremony if things are not right. Or just just don't fit in with rules. They're our customers; not that different from tourists. They're in Uni provided halls for the most part so not taking housing from the indigenes.
People coming to work are simply responding to a market. The rule allowing them to be underpaid 20% is a disgrace and distorts the market.
Remember a conversation just after the referendum with a law student who was volunteering at work. We both observed that immigrtion post Brexit would only go down seriously if the economy was carashed as a consequence.
From 2008 until last year people were almost paying to lend money to the UK government. They could have investd billions in Social Housing with the cost fully covered by rent. Needless to say neither strip actually did it...
|
The 20% lower wage thing is at odds with equality legislation Shirley, even if not actually illegal. And virtually guarantees that there is downward pressure on wages for indigenes (thanks for reminding me the word existed, I'll make sure to use it regularly).
The 700,000 probably is an outlier, but ordinary people have been extending their range and propensity to seek a life elsewhere since the invention of the bicycle. It's a trend that is not going to reverse, and will be propelled by climate change.
Better get used to it.
|
>> ...... but ordinary people have been extending their range and propensity to seek a life elsewhere since the >>invention of the bicycle.
....and well before (though I now can't get the image out of my mind of the Pilgrim Fathers riding around Massachusets on their Raleigh Choppers :-) )
|
They're in Uni provided halls for the most part so
>> not taking housing from the indigenes.
>>
>>
I'd be surprised if they built enough halls to house them all for their entire course, if they did it still means pressure on local housing markets from domestic students for their first year as they'd be unable to access halls. Or there's been massive house and halls building in the area around unis across the country.
|
>> Or there's been massive
>> house and halls building in the area around unis across the country.
Some places have added massively to halls. Sheffield was growing them exponentially when my Daughter was at Hallam.
Similar here in Northampton. Bloomsbury has seen several former government offices converted to student flats.
Not so good other places though, was it Edinburgh that was in the news at Freshers time?
|
Is there something fundamentally unsustainable about the structure of the UK economy and society. Many come here to work to support a UK economy which is clearly deficient in the range of skills and or incentives for UK born nationals to do the jobs.
Importing people to fill the gaps in the job market is analogous to borrowing money to support an unsustainable standard of living. It can be expedient in the short term but is not a longer term solution.
A strategy to balance the UK labour market is needed so that skills and people available better match those that are required. The alternative is an ever growing imported (migrant) workforce.
How is the question - improved productivity, implementation of AI more widely, better training and education, automation???
|
>> Is there something fundamentally unsustainable about the structure of the UK economy and society.
Ultimately, yes if we continually run a budget deficit.
Balance of payments deficits can be offset by foreign investment which I guess is not unrelated to much of our infrastructure being foreign owned, resulting in bigger future deficits driven by the export of earnings.
Ultimately we either live beyond our means or reduce our standard of living relative to our peers, which eventually happens anyway either gradually or catastrophically.
>>
>> How is the question - improved productivity, implementation of AI more widely, better training and
>> education, automation???
I suspect higher investment underlies the greater productivity of more successful peer countries. But the mindset here is that British workers must be lazier. I don't believe it.
The best thing in the Autumn statement was 100% first year write down on capital spend. Ultimately it shouldn't reduce the tax take, just accelerate relief. And if the investment results in better productivity, further increase tax on future profits
|
>But the mindset here is that British workers must be lazier. I don't believe it.
No. I think the mindset is that there are too many Brits of working age who are non-productive.
|
>> No. I think the mindset is that there are too many Brits of working age
>> who are non-productive.
On the face of it that seems to be the case.
If you dig down into the numbers what are the whys/wherefores?
The Government's line that it's those who have (a) 'passed' a Work Capability Assessment so get an extra £400/month and (b) could work at home doesn't stack up.
What's been said by Hunt suggests they either don't know the current rules or are happy for them to be misrepresented. The days when the gates to long term sick 'on the Social' were opened by a sick note (fit note in today's parlance) are long gone - pre coalition IIRC.
How many of those who cannot work could if their health conditions were properly and promptly treated?
I guess if I wanted to be I could be 'economically inactive'; I'm still two years off getting the State Pension at 66. But I've got a decent occupational pension I can live on. Plenty more like that I think.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 4 Dec 23 at 21:00
|
>> No. I think the mindset is that there are too many Brits of working age
>> who are non-productive.
>
That's a different thing entirely. Being economically inactive has been the goal of my entire life and I'm not giving it up because the party of capital of capital couldn't run a fish and chip shop.
Productivity is output per hour actually worked and is the definition used by ONS.
Nothing to do with the so-called economically inactive.
|
In which case I think you are correct to disbelieve that British workers are lazier than their peers in other countries but wrong that there is a mindset which believes otherwise.
Does that make sense?
|
Yes it makes sense but I think there is a mindset on the right that if only they could break the unions and ban tea breaks it would all get better.
I think it's about investment. Which is why the 100% write down is a good thing (and also happens to be Labour policy).
|
>> People coming to work are simply responding to a market. The rule allowing them to
>> be underpaid 20% is a disgrace and distorts the market.
>>
>>
news.sky.com/story/tougher-visa-rules-for-foreign-workers-including-ban-on-bringing-families-and-raising-minimum-salary-requirement-13022936
Appears to be changing.
|
>> news.sky.com/story/tougher-visa-rules-for-foreign-workers-including-ban-on-bringing-families-and-raising-minimum-salary-requirement-13022936
>>
>> Appears to be changing.
Removing the 20% wage undercut is an outbreak of common sense.
The rest, I fear, is red meat for the Tories' supporters. Somebody on the radio an hour or so ago was asking whether they'd thought this through or actually spoken to people in the Social Care industry. How many of us would work abroad as an ex-pat in a decent and safe country if we cannot bring the kids? Would Rishi Sunk or Cleverly?
Like Rwanda it flies in the face of practicality and common sense. It won't work and if they find themselves blinking in the spotlights of power after the GE they'll have to retreat.
|
> Removing the 20% wage undercut is an outbreak of common sense.
Agreed, the cleverly said though was like it was new policy brought in last week rather than his party. But I guess that's pretty standard from both sides.
>> The rest, I fear, is red meat for the Tories' supporters. Somebody on the radio
>> an hour or so ago was asking whether they'd thought this through or actually spoken
>> to people in the Social Care industry. How many of us would work abroad as
>> an ex-pat in a decent and safe country if we cannot bring the kids? Would
>> Rishi Sunk or Cleverly?
>>
I wouldn't go that far, reviewing what jobs are on the shortage list isn't really a difficult one. Yes, it matters what criteria you apply but as an idea it's common sense.
Wage threashold moves up with inflation+, isn't a bad idea. The student visa one is one that needs looking at, I wonder how many disappear. From people I know that have worked on BF etc, there's quite a few that would be extremely lucky to finish the course they've got the paperwork for.
Agree on the social care sector, they always seem to be short. Although I'd say moving overseas (minus family) isn't that uncommon worldwide. I've known quite a few do it and when overseas worked with those that have done so.
I don't think it's just Con supporters, this is an issue for quite a few voting groups including quite a few Labour supporters. I don't think it's helpful to label it as a one party issue.
|
|
I don’t believe there is any shortage of applicants overseas for these care worker jobs. It surely makes sense for the U.K. to target those with no dependants.
|
target those with no dependants.
Isn't that discrimination?
|
|
Yes. It’s discrimination against offering a job to someone who might potentially cost the U.K. twice as much as someone else.
|
|
That's the spirit, you'll be offered a post in the cabinet in no time! ;-)
|
>I've known quite a few do it and when overseas worked with those that have done so.
Correct Sooty. It actually happens quite a lot, especially in engineering. In the international mining and petro-chem sectors it's pretty much SOP. You can go to any large scale mine or refinery in Africa, Asia or Oz and I guarantee you'll find ex-pat engineers seperated from their families (and at least one of 'em will be Scottish). If the lifestyle suits, you then look into gaining Permanent Residence.
Last edited by: Kevin on Mon 4 Dec 23 at 19:30
|
What really surprises me is what 25%+ of the electorate, according to the polls, will put up with. Has nobody noticed that Sunak cancelled HS2, the biggest infrastructure programme for decades, without even giving Parliament a say and then acted to make the decision irreversible? And the sheer scale of corruption and malfeasance in public finances?
As for finding fault - they seem to seize almost any opportunity to look worse. Sunak's idiotic response over the Parthenon marbles being just baffling.
By all accounts Starmer is also reluctant to advocate handing them over but at least he seems more polite about it (I understand his desire not to give away anything that could give the Tories any possible kind of ammunition but his reluctance repeatedly to fail to stand up for what is obviously right is beginning to annoy me).
The Greeks are serious Anglophiles, apart from this and the ones who have to put up with drunk English tourists. They are quite perplexed I think about the English attitude over the marbles particularly since they have built an outstanding museum with a big space in it to house them - the excuse for years was that they were better looked after in the BM.
My favourite politician of the moment is Richard Tice. Heaven forbid he should ever get any control but he seems determined to completely stuff the Conservative party:)
|
Cancelling HS2 was a decision delayed for far to long. A project that was inadequately justified from the outset, woefully managed, and hugely over time and cost. Much of the British electorate will have heaved a sigh of relief that it was summarily cancelled.
Hard evidence to justify assertions of corruption and malfeasance is needed. Or was it pure incompetence, or the result of a train lobby breathing life into something that should have been pronounced dead a decade earlier.
Immigration - the British public are clearly split between extremes of those who would rather send back all who come illegally vs those who want to consider fully every protracted appeal before acting.
Both Sunak and Starmer are politicians who do not want to alienate any potential voter. The result is that politicians - sit on the fence, make anodyne statements, try to communicate leadership without commitment, etc. Clarity and honesty does not win elections (sadly).
By contrast most of the British public have never seen the Elgin Marbles and think it a Greek game played with round glass balls. However the public will take their lead from the media - it will either be painted as "Rishi gives in" or "Rishi gets tough". An inconsequential fuss IMHO.
|
|
BTW I can only agree with your comment re Richard Tice
|
>>
>>
>> By contrast most of the British public have never seen the Elgin Marbles and think
>> it a Greek game played with round glass balls. However the public will take their
>> lead from the media - it will either be painted as "Rishi gives in" or
>> "Rishi gets tough". An inconsequential fuss IMHO.
>>
I've never met anyone who has either mentioned seeing them or gives a damn what happens to them. Outside of times when the media kick up a fuss I doubt if most people even know where they are kept.
|
>> I've never met anyone who has either mentioned seeing them or gives a damn what
>> happens to them. Outside of times when the media kick up a fuss I doubt
>> if most people even know where they are kept.
Exactly. But the Greek people do. The idea of looking for opportunities to unite people seems to have been replaced by a desire to divide whenever possible. It's a nasty way to seek popularity, which has been used by the nastiest of historical figures.
|
>> I've never met anyone who has either mentioned seeing them or gives a damn what
>> happens to them. Outside of times when the media kick up a fuss I doubt
>> if most people even know where they are kept.
I worked near the British Museum for a long time an occasionally wandered in in my lunchbreak. I think I wandered past the Parthenon Sculptures once or twice. They're not much different to the sort of things you'd see in a English Country house aping Greco/Roman stuff. Not exciting.
The Chessmen mentioned upthread are also there and were of intertest to my kids 'cos we holidayed on Lewis Harris. They are interesting.
|
>> Cancelling HS2 was a decision delayed for far to long. A project that was inadequately
>> justified from the outset, woefully managed, and hugely over time and cost. Much of the
>> British electorate will have heaved a sigh of relief that it was summarily cancelled.
Whether there was a case for it in the first place and whether or not it should be cancelled is something on which you and I can agree to differ. Doing the cancellation in the way he did without any debate or Parliamentary involvement AND stuffing the chances of resuscitating it later when either the politics or the economics look different is another question.
>> Hard evidence to justify assertions of corruption and malfeasance is needed. Or was it pure
>> incompetence, or the result of a train lobby breathing life into something that should have
>> been pronounced dead a decade earlier.
I don't think there's corruption as such in HS2 and Manatees comment was a wider one.
Probably one of the few bits of Public Procurement where there's not. Whether, like in the miners strike where Coppers paid off their mortgages on overtime hours, people have worked to their own advantage is another question.
>>
>> Immigration - the British public are clearly split between extremes of those who would rather
>> send back all who come illegally vs those who want to consider fully every protracted
>> appeal before acting.
In practical terms you cannot 'send them back'. That's the refoulement pont that sank Rwanda in fornt of the Supreme Court. The appeal system is there for a reason. If it's 'protracted' that's becuase we've not stopped it being; a matter of political will and resources.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 1 Dec 23 at 15:33
|
>>Both Sunak and Starmer are politicians who do not want to alienate any potential voter.
Certainly true of Starmer. Not so with Sunak who is behaving as if he is hostage to the extreme right and ultra-Brexity people in his party.
This seems a mad strategy to me (therefore a good thing!) in that he seems careless of the centrist Conservative voters, many of whom do not approve of Rwanda etc. I use Rwanda as an example - he's behaving as if a majority of the electorate approve and I don't think they do.
An explanation for this might be that Sunak is at least as concerned with defending his own position as with his own party's election prospects, although he may think that it has some appeal in the red wall seats. It's not lost on me that 30p Lee transitioned effortlessly from Labour to hard right Tory in one bound, and is now MP for such a constituency.
Meanwhile, I imagine Starmer has Napoleon's advice in mind - never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.
|
This seems a mad strategy to me (therefore a good thing!) in that he seems
>> careless of the centrist Conservative voters, many of whom do not approve of Rwanda etc.
>> I use Rwanda as an example - he's behaving as if a majority of the
>> electorate approve and I don't think they do.
>>
I think you have explained your confusion over his strategy below.
When it comes to politics it's easy for strong supporters of any idea or party to assume the lot are a noisy minority or swivel eyed loons and won't carry the day.
I would have thought the brexit wasn't that long ago that people have forgotten it already.
, although he may think that
>> it has some appeal in the red wall seats. It's not lost on me that
>> 30p Lee transitioned effortlessly from Labour to hard right Tory in one bound, and is
>> now MP for such a constituency.
>>
|
>Sunak's idiotic response over the Parthenon marbles being just baffling.
Could he have lost his own?
|
I think some here are somewhat caught up in the DM headlines too. As Sooty alluded to above (I think) I expect many fewer than the DM & others would have you believe actually really have a sensible well founded opinion on the marbles, HS2, immigration etc etc.
But the papers would have you think they do, and people are being suckered in by it, albeit on the other side of the fence.
I never even look at the Mail so I have only the stuff I read here (and in Private Eye, plus occasional bits of "celeb" gossip which SWMBO mistakenly thinks I might be interested in) to inform me about what the Mail is saying.
|
Looks as if Jenrick has resigned possibly to throw in his lot with Braverman, who made her own Geoffrey Howell speech in the Commons today.
Sunak has been to see the 22 Committee.
They have also today launched a draft Rwanda bill the would pass a law to prevent courts from considering various other bits of law in relation to the possibility of Rwanda 'refouling' asylum seekers.
Rwanda has since then issued a statement that it will not countenance any arrangement that flouts international law.
Jenrick confirmed gone.
Can they really have another leadership contest?
And all over sending a 100 odd people to Rwanda when immigration is 700,000 and asylum backlog 130,000.
Oh frabjous day. Popcorn please.
|
|
FGS Sunak, just call an election and let the country be free of your lot.
|
Nick Robinson had good interview with Cruella this morning!
|
|
I was struck by the number of times she said "Listen".
|
He now seems to be in rock/hard place territory between being bumped off by his right wing and tipping Rwanda to they point they tell him to stich his treaty.
He's made clear that he will not treat second reading as a confidence issue.
If it survives the Commons the Lords will surely hold it up for as long as they can.
|
>> If it survives the Commons the Lords will surely hold it up for as long
>> as they can.
This will just encourage the case for reforming the HoL - not a good reason but will play to the Tory right.
|
It would be nice to think that the Tory right will be consigned to the dustbin of history after the next election.
I'm not counting on it. At the moment they seem to think they just aren't being fascist enough.
|
I’m obviously remote from the whole asylum seeker issue up here in Lanarkshire.
But is it really the number one priority that the “British” public are talking about and concerned about. Or is it just manipulated by the right wing press to brainwash their readers into believing it is?
|
>> But is it really the number one priority that the “British” public are talking about
>> and concerned about. Or is it just manipulated by the right wing press to brainwash
>> their readers into believing it is?
It's got blown up out of all proportion to the scale of the actual problem. It's all over the news. People really think it's like an invasion. 'Stop the Boats' has become the Tories signature.
It's a Dead Cat thing. Government is in a total mess in anything and everything.
So they shout - Oh look 100 brown people in a rubber boat and it distracts people.
TBH I think people like Cleverly recognise the message is far bigger than the problem but, politically, they've painted themselves into a corner.
People entering the country to claim Asylum has been an thing for years. Certainly since the early noughties when there were 'camps' etc around Sangatte I suspect 9/11>Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq were drivers but other 'trouble spots' also feature.
The current number arriving by boat is c40k pa - about the same, maybe fewer than 20 years ago.
We let 800k in legally.
Do your own Math....
|
|
No I really don't think it is.
|
But is it really the number one priority that the “British” public are talking about
>> and concerned about. Or is it just manipulated by the right wing press to brainwash
>> their readers into believing it is?
>>
I think it's a problem with multiple issues in itself. It's more of an example how the gov is unable to deal with a particular issue, the more that the issue seems to be unsolvable and any attempt to solve fails then it grows in importance.
Of course there's then the inability of the PM to do what he said he would do, this just then adds to the issue and it becomes even bigger.
It's regularly in the top 3/4 issues for the public, it's not an obscure issue.
yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48056-to-what-extent-is-immigration-a-top-issue-for-britons
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 7 Dec 23 at 20:52
|
Rwanda deal has cost a reported £140m - the real figure ay never be known.
Its only merit may have been to act as a deterrent - the numbers that would actually be shipped out would be trivial. In truth it is simply crass.
£140m would have funded the Home Office to recruit (say) 500-1000 extra staff to deal with immigration claims promptly for the next three years.
The length of time it takes to clear cases is wholly unacceptable - high cost of accommodation and support, legal costs, and the impact on the immigrants themselves.
The law should be changed to resolve asylum claims with far fewer appeals and procrastination - possibly one initial claim + one appeal. Thereafter either given leave to stay (and work etc) or sent back immediately.
|
>> The law should be changed to resolve asylum claims with far fewer appeals and procrastination
>> - possibly one initial claim + one appeal. Thereafter either given leave to stay (and
>> work etc) or sent back immediately.
I think there's a way forward there in the sense the process needs speeding up.
Home Office makes a decision that that applicant doesn't qualify for Asylum. One internal review by another Decision Maker then appeal to a Tribunal that's wholly independent.
Any appeal beyond that limited to points of law and with permission/leave.
I suspect actually that's not far off how it is; it just takes too long.
Where they go if they're 'sent back' is a different question.....
|
Where they go if they're 'sent back' is a different question.....
>>
I suspect that's alot of the issue. Where do you send failed asylum seekers from, say afghanistan, we don't recognise their gov. We have no real relations, what do you do? They'll never accept any gov/military flight, you'd never get dip clearance so pointless trying.
You can add other countries to that example as well. Libya, there's about three gov who all think they run the country, Syria is another country we have no real relations with and no doubt others.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 7 Dec 23 at 22:19
|
Sending them home is one aspect.
In the countries you mention back is, or is close to, refoulement and not an option even if we could put them on a BA flight.
If somebody, say an Afghan, comes here from an EU country and should, per our system have claimed Asylum there, where do we send them if the EU country won't have them back?
|
>> It's regularly in the top 3/4 issues for the public, it's not an obscure issue.
>>
>>
>> yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48056-to-what-extent-is-immigration-a-top-issue-for-britons
I think you have to acknowledge the point that immigrants are the governments nominated hate and blame target, and even with all their propaganda only one in five think it's the top issue.
The top issues of course are that we are broke, the NHS is collapsing, and we don't have the money to fix it. But they can't blame anybody but themselves for that. I'm surprised they haven't yet gone for benefit claimants in a bigger way as they did in austerity.
There are some common factors with fascists. They whip up hatred against a minority, and they change the law when it's inconvenient. Not only are they doing this it's practically all they are doing.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 7 Dec 23 at 23:02
|
>> I'm surprised they haven't yet gone for benefit claimants in a bigger way
>> as they did in austerity.
It's on their agenda.
Apparently, even if you're unable to work and also do work related activity, Hunt thinks you could work from home.
|
|
Feel free to think it's a non issue. I find people make up their own minds about what is important or not.
|
The whole cost of Rwanda, ignoring the scheme itself, is ridiculous. I believe they have admitted they have now paid another £100m so that’s £240m they have paid.
£240m.
If that was spent in our economy for building housing, social care, processing etc surely it’s better going in to our economy than theirs?
And bear in mind there is no end game plan here. That money will keep being paid out so why not invest it here?
|
Actually was there not a paper leaked at one time saying that the cost per migrant to Rwanda would be £170,000 or thereabouts?
Oh and Rwanda can send asylum seekers here? Why would that ever be the case if it is such a safe country?
|
>> Feel free to think it's a non issue. I find people make up their own
>> minds about what is important or not.
I don't think it's a non-issue. With 165,000 (most recent figure I've heard) unprocessed asylum seekers, it's obviously something that needs dealing with. Yet when Jenrick was challenged with this a couple of months ago he said "we don't want an efficient system for dealing with them because the delay is part of the deterrence" (I paraphrase). That makes a kind of sense but it's not really a plan. Incidentally this is where the £8m a day (£3 billion a year) accommodation costs come from.
Of course it's a problem.
42,000 boaties is a lot. Unfortunately they (asylum seekers) get conflated with the 700,000 or so net 'immigrants'.
Yet there's usually little mention of exactly who those people were. Didn't we lose about 300,000 EU workers through Brexit? Isn't there a labour shortage? Presumably some of last year's intake were replacements?
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2023/summary-of-latest-statistics
"The UK offered protection to 175,142 people in the year ending June 2023. 20,888 (12%) people were granted refugee status or other protection following an asylum application and 154,254 (88%) were offered a safe and legal (humanitarian) route to the UK."
Presumably the latter were mainly Ukraine with some Afghanistan/Hong Kong.
"In the year ending June 2023, there were 498,626 sponsored study visas issued to main applicants, 23% more than in the year ending June 2022.
There were 142,848 grants to Indian nationals, an increase of 49,883 (+54%) compared to year ending June 2022. Chinese nationals were the second most common nationality granted sponsored study visas in the year ending June 2023, with 107,670 visas granted."
One assumes that most of these students are supposed to go home at some point. It did occur to me that some might decide they want to stay after their studies because with this week's knee-jerk increase of the qualifying earnings to £38,700 they might never get back in again should they want to thereafter. Unintended consequences perhaps.
"There were 321,101 grants to main applicants on work visas, 45% higher than in the year ending June 2022, largely due to increases in the ‘Skilled Worker’ visas.
‘Skilled Worker’ visa grants have increased by 34% (+17,610) in the past year to 69,421. ‘Skilled Worker – Health and Care’ visa grants have increased over two and a half times (+157% or +74,096) to 121,290 compared with the previous year
The latest increase is in part due to the expansion in late 2021 for ‘Care Workers and Home Carers’ and ‘Senior Care Workers’. In the year ending June 2023, ‘Care Workers and Home Carers’ comprised around 50% of visas granted under the ‘Health and Care’ visa category.
Indian nationals were the highest nationality granted on both these routes."
The truth is that the vast majority of immigrants are legal and coming with permission. They are needed, or at least wanted. The big mistake that keeps being repeated is to conspire in the idea that immigration is always unwanted and to promise that it will be much lower, just before it goes up.
|
It is worth noting that from 2012 annual net immigration has been 2-300k.
Unsurprisingly it fell during Covid and Brexit period - the 700k last year may be something of a bounce back and in context.
I am not sure that the extended periods taken to consider asylum claims act as a deterrent as claimed - it seems more likely to be an attraction. If you have been here (say) 3 years having had multiple appeals it seems less likely asylum will be refused.
I suspect many (not all) make the risky journey to the UK simply because the UK grants more asylum claims than France, Germany or Spain - many claimants will be those whose claims would be unsuccessful if made in mainland Europe.
Processing asylum claims in (say) 3 months and acting promptly on the outcome would be a far greater deterrent.
|
>>
>> I suspect many (not all) make the risky journey to the UK simply because the
>> UK grants more asylum claims than France, Germany or Spain - many claimants will be
>> those whose claims would be unsuccessful if made in mainland Europe.
>>
...I know large sections of the media like to represent this (for whatever reason) as a uniquely British problem, but the stats don't really support that.
Of course it depends on whether you comparing applicants, grant of status, etc., but the EU figures as below represent more of a "universality" of "problem".
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics&oldid=558844
(And, at least in recent years, the numbers in Turkey have topped those above).
|
>> I am not sure that the extended periods taken to consider asylum claims act as
>> a deterrent as claimed - it seems more likely to be an attraction. If you
>> have been here (say) 3 years having had multiple appeals it seems less likely asylum
>> will be refused.
Lack of timely resolution in Citizen v State cases like this has been an issue for years. My last post in the MoJ was concerned with oversight of this stuff and it was a theme in Annual Reports passim.
It's not improved since. I've got PIP appeals taking well over 6 months to get a hearing.
It's a question of having the right number of Judges, and at least in Benefit Tribunals wingers, in the right numbers etc.
I don't think the process itself has too many stages. The abuse occurs when desperate people fall into the hands of less than scrupulous advisers who try and 'renew' applications on spurious grounds.
>> I suspect many (not all) make the risky journey to the UK simply because the
>> UK grants more asylum claims than France, Germany or Spain - many claimants will be
>> those whose claims would be unsuccessful if made in mainland Europe.
As TnE says I don't think the stats bear that out.
Those coming to the UK do so becuase they've relatives or settled communities here, speak good English and may have qualifications we'll recognise. Venue shopping isn't actually big thing.
|
|
Are the home office civil servants still working from home allowed to work on these cases or are they prevented from doing so due to data protection concerns?
|
>> Are the home office civil servants still working from home allowed to work on these
>> cases or are they prevented from doing so due to data protection concerns?
I suspect it will depend which HO systems they need to access; some are strictly office only.
Or you may be able to do most of it at home but with the others beong updated by staff in the office.
There has been a recent HMG wide initiative to get staff back in the office for >50% of their contracted hours. I'm sure there are some work areas where that might be good but a lot of others are just asked to footslog it in to no gain for their productivity or that of their business unit.
|
What sort of international databases can these Immigration staff tap into to ascertain the identity and authenticity of the applicant?
I understand in the first instance they ditch their passports in the Channel.
|
>> I understand in the first instance they ditch their passports in the Channel.
Not being snipey, genuine question, where did you hear that?
|
I suspect there are no reliable databases given the origin of many asylum seekers.
By the time they reach the UK they may have travelled through several "safe" European countries including France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria + others. If lacking ID, arguably they should seek asylum in the first safe country. If they reach the UK we have a choice:
1. Accept their story, offer asylum as there is no certainty from whence they came or where they should be returned.
2. Send them back to wherever we believe they may have originated as we can neither confirm their story nor origin.
Public opinion would no doubt be split - thus there will be no clear political leadership.
|
>> I suspect there are no reliable databases given the origin of many asylum seekers.
I'm sure that's right. Even if they've come from a country that was, until it fell into (say) civil war - eg Syria - I very much doubt we could access any detail of them. However, that would be different if they were known to the Security Services here, in Europe, the States and other places then they might well be on a database.
As to ascertaining whether they're really from where they say I suspect that can be done. Arabic has any number of versions and dialects which can be identified. Culture and geography are pretty good lines of inquiry too.
Even if my French was perfect and I'd learned to speak it in the Provence style I couldn't pass as French. I'd struggle to be (monoglot English) Welsh or Scots either.
One of the sad facts about Windrush people was that if a Caseworker brought up in the UK in the sixties had had a chat over tea and biscuits about schooling, TV etc with Hubert Howard or Paulette Wilson would at least have established they were here then.
They used to do that but instead the legwork was handed over to youngsters in less senior grades and with business run so you never saw the same person twice.
|
Both the ERG and the 'One Nation' group seem to have cohorts within them who will abstain or even vote against the bill.
Sunak, assuming he's serious about this, is in a very tight space politically. On the one hand - ignoring the liberal wing of his party - he's in danger of his bill being crashed by his own right wing and on the other of adding a tweak to the controls and it being crashed becuase the Rwandan govt kick it into touch for their own reputation.
Bit like what aviators call 'coffin corner' where the speed the airframe stops flying and the one at which it exceeds it's design envelope are within a few knots of one another....
|
Sky reporting the PM is calling ERGs bluff, if they vote against it he'll call an election.
ERG have advised him to pull the bill.
|
Theresa May when she came under internal party pressure resigned - we got Boris and Brexit.
Sunak should call their bluff. Even though the Rwanda bill has become a matter of dogma rather than an effective immigration management tool, divided parties don't do well in elections.
Why wait another year for the reality to sink in. The Tories need to rid themselves of ERG influence - do as I say or (a) lose your seat and (b) no resignation honours!
Last edited by: Terry on Mon 11 Dec 23 at 16:55
|
|
They can still do an untold amount of damage in the next year, not to mention line their pockets and get their careers ready for when the inevitable happens.
|
It'll be a tough jobs market. There will be a considerable number of their colleagues looking
for work at the same time.
|
So it has become a confidence vote.
I'd guess they won't vote to lose their own jobs.
|
>> So it has become a confidence vote.
Where's that being reported? Cannot find it on the Graun or BBC...
Direct contradiction to what he said last week?
|
|
The effect is the same as a confidence vote. He wouldn't resign, he'd call an election. By saying he will do that if it doesn't pass, he has made it a confidence vote.
|
|
I suspect any party leader would be doing the same...
|
|
Sunak will win the vote . Its simply a question of "We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
|
|
It seems Italy are setting up a deal to send migrants to Albania and Germany is looking at a similar scheme to that proposed by the UK and Italy.
|
>> It seems Italy are setting up a deal to send migrants to Albania and Germany
>> is looking at a similar scheme to that proposed by the UK and Italy.
Are they deporting them to wherever for good as with Rwanda or is it offshore processing?
|
|
Reception centres. So it will be offshore processing.
|
>> I suspect any party leader would be doing the same...
I'm sure they would, but it's unlikely that most leaders would ever be in that position in the first place.
I love it when people try to make these psychopaths sound normal.
They are trying selectively to disapply human rights because laws that have stood for decades to protect people obstruct their policy.
Fascists don't start off as fully fledged Nazis. They come as friends of the people, promising to rid them of some supposed enemies, whose rights they remove first. In this case asylum seekers, on another day people who hold up a placard or feel they must go on strike. They lie a lot, big lies not a bit of spin. The common factors are there.
|
Appears that whichever way any bloc votes this won't make law. By the time its been through the HoC then the HoL and the legal challenges it'll be time for an election. There's no time for the PM to use the Parliament Act either.
I can't see anyway that the plan becomes law.
|
|
He doesn't need it to become law - he merely needs it to be in progress and able to blame the opposition for holding it up.
|
Maybe so, it's a risky plan to try and win an election.
Has anyone seen anything resembling detail on what the 290m given to Rwanda has been spent on?
|
>> They are trying selectively to disapply human rights because laws that have stood for decades
>> to protect people obstruct their policy.
That.
Exactly.
I'd speak more bluntly and say they're withdrawing the rule of law.
Who is next??
|
I have trouble keeping all this in my head.
There are five right wing 'clubs' in the parliamentary Conservative party. They are apparently known as the Five Families, allegedly after the five Mafia families that control organised crime in New York. Whether they chose the name themselves I don't know!
They are
European Research Group
Northern Research Group
New Conservatives
Common Sense Group
Conservative Growth Group.
They have been exchanging notes on legal opinions on the Rwanda bill. The gist of the legal opinion taken by the ERG is that it does not go far enough. It's unclear what they will do if the vote goes ahead. Sunak has now said he will not resign so it is not a confidence vote, but it's hard to see how it wouldn't be the beginning of his end if he loses it. The awful Mark Francois et al have told him to withdraw the bill, or else, so as of last night it seems it was a stand off.
The government via the whips is telling them their lawyers have got it wrong. Sunak was to have a breakfast meeting with some of the 'dons' this morning to try and get them onside.
I'm guessing he's safe, and they don't really want to vote him down, hence the dire warning.
The "One Nation Conservatives" have said they will support the bill at this stage, but they don't like it in its present from - for them of course it goes too far.
|
The ERG were very effective at the time of May's Brexit stand off but reports say they've lost cohesion since and came a cropper over NI/Windsor.
New Conservatives include Miriam Cates and others who have the look/feel of parts of the US Republicans.
Not sure about the others but Jonathan Gullis and 30p Lee are prominent too.
Current thinking amongst the commentators is the Sunak will get his second reading but that there are enough potential abstainers and outright rebels that it might go to the wire and be a small majority. Clearly Lib Dems, Labour and Scots/Welsh Nats are against but I've not seen anything about Ulster Loyalists. Have you?
|
From what I've read 2 of the groups didn't turn up to the main meeting yesterday. I don't think all the groups hold a collective opinion on this issue. From what i understand NRG, for example, has an interest in levelling up, infrastructure, housing, metro mayors etc, i don't think rwanda policy is their thing. Of course individually they may hold a string opinion.
Other groups may be the same.
|
|
And meanwhile who is running the country?
|
Great comment. I heard something on this maybe a week ago, by comparison with the usual level of activity parliament has been doing much less of late with much shorter sittings.
They are electioneering I guess.
|
>> And meanwhile who is running the country?
>>
I refer you to "Yes Prime Minister" - still largely true after 37 years although TV and other media have expanded more than somewhat:
Hacker: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big t1ts.
|
>> Oh dear!
>>
>> www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/25082044/rwanda-labour-keir-starmer-migrants/
So Labour's prospective candidate in Bishop Auckland sells 'adventure' holidays in Africa including Rwanda.
I think going there as a young tourist for a week or two, with a westerners money, insurance and adult supervision, and being deported for the foreseeable future might just be a wee bit different.
Wasn't Cuba quite popular for hols even when Fidel was in his pomp. Ditto places behind the Iron Curtain....
Bananas and elephants (again).
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 17 Dec 23 at 14:03
|
I wouldn't go on holiday to Rwanda. But I suppose that's the point, I don't have to.
If he sent people to Rwanda who had booked a holiday in Margate, that might be getting slightly more relevant.
|
>Wasn't Cuba quite popular for hols even when Fidel was in his pomp.
>Bananas and elephants (again).
Cuba's a lovely place, been there many times but you and I both know that the reality doesn't count. It's the headlines.
|
Actually Rwanda looks a rather good holiday destination. Fabulous scenery and wildlife and Kigali is claimed to be the cleanest town in Africa. Cheap too.
|
>> ....... Cheap too.
>>
....particularly so if you can get a "Government flight"...
|
|
Well yes but that's one way only. You can get there and BACK for £700 return
|
I do absolutely get why there would be outrage over this but I also would say if I took the decision to flee to a foreign country I'd be happily surprised with them coughing up for accommodation and food.
A little related drift - my mate has hosted a Ukranian lady and her teenage son and younger daughter since the early days of the war. He doesn't know for sure but is pretty sure she was getting the thick end of £1k per month in the early days, and of course no housing costs, though she did contribute to the energy bills. She's also been the recipient of other stuff from charities (food in the early days). She was encouraged by the benefits people to learn the language but still doesn't have much ability and only recently she was told she must make a bit more effort, with a view to getting her out to work. She knows to keep any work below 16 hours so it doesn't affect her benefits. Her husband has been visiting and recently arrived on one-way ticket. As they are now a family, they have been given a newly converted house, and he too is getting some form of benefits. They move out this week. I don't believe there has been any means testing. He ran his own small business in the Ukraine so may or may not have a few bob. They have been no trouble to my mate, unlike other stories I know of first hand, and he'll be somewhat sorry to see them go. But we've discussed that the UK treatment is particularly generous for some.
|
>> I do absolutely get why there would be outrage over this but I also would
>> say if I took the decision to flee to a foreign country I'd be happily
>> surprised with them coughing up for accommodation and food.
There's no answer that suits everyone.
We could of course let them work. But as we don't they'd be on the streets and/or starved. I think most Western countries have some sort of support system for those seeking Asylum.
Here it's a lot less than under normal benefits.
>> A little related drift - my mate has hosted a Ukranian lady and her teenage
>> son and younger daughter since the early days of the war.
This is an interesting example of how stories and incomplete truths get about.
People who came here as refugees from Ukraine can claim normal benefits - in this case that would be Universal Credit (UC). The £1,000 a month isn't far off. Standard Allowance, i.e. living expenses, for a single adult over 25 is £368.74 and there'd be £584.58 between the kids - total £953.32. Not a lot really for keeping three people warm, fed and clothed. Given she was a 'lodger' she might have been a bit better off than in a damp old private let and had a bit of a win that way.
There's no magic about 16hours; maybe there was in some legacy system. She'll keep some earnings, around £600/month, as a work allowance. After that UC will reduce by 55p for every £1. On that basis one should always be better off both working and working more.
I don't know whether a business in Ukraine has any real value once over here as an asset. Houses over there are disregarded as capital on the basis that selling them and getting money to the UK was night on impossible. If he's able to draw an income in the UK then he should be declaring it.
As a family with children they'd score high to be housed IF a place is available. Lots of places they'd probably be in B&B or grotty temporary accom.
As a Welfare Rights person I can assure you that the UK system, at least for those below pension age, is anything but generous....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 19 Dec 23 at 14:56
|
There's no magic about 16hours; maybe there was in some legacy system. She'll keep some
>> earnings, around £600/month, as a work allowance.
Isn't 16 hr p/w on nmw about 600/month?
|
>> Isn't 16 hr p/w on nmw about 600/month?
10.42*16*52/12 = £722 so a wee bit more. I don't think there's intended to be a link though some triggers in UC, such as eligibility for a Work Capability Assessment and earnings thresholds below which work search obligations apply are set as multiples of National Living Wage.
The Work Allowances have been markedly increased and the taper rate (ie the rate at which UC is eroded by earnings) reduced in recent years so as to increase incentives to work/work more.
|
I think my account was fairly free of incomplete truths and there was no deliberate deception, so apols for the 16h bit.
I suppose my thinking was that there are equally deserving people within our own existing population who have been on waiting lists for things whereas some seem to be fast tracked into a not-uncomfortable level of subsistence. At least, it seems to be attractive enough that this particular family wants to put its roots down here.
Is our system much less generous than other European countries, or maybe Australia or America?
Having read around a bit I'm not sure it is really, though comparison is really quite difficult.
|
>> I think my account was fairly free of incomplete truths and there was no deliberate
>> deception, so apols for the 16h bit.
I wasn't pointing the finger at you so much as highlighting how misapprehensions spread ie you can do 16 hours and it won't affect benefits.
I've an idea that might have been true in some legacy sickness benefits - where a limited amount of 'permitted work' was allowed to try and get people started.
After further digging about and wracking my memory it also the case that 16 hours was a key point in Tax Credits as it was the point at which the Working Tax Element cut in. All other things equal you'd be £80 or so quid a week better off at 17 hours than 15.
The number of Self Employed people doing a 16hours and a bit writing or making stuff was incredible.....
There were other sweet spots and cliff edges too.
Universal Credit, for all the stick it gets, is actually well structured from the point of view of allowing people to be progressively better off the more they work.
|
>> As a Welfare Rights person I can assure you that the UK system, at least
>> for those below pension age, is anything but generous....
I am not entirely convinced you are the best person to make that judgement, although you seem to think that you are.
The UK benefits seem to me to be remarkably generous to anyone coming here who hasn't paid a brass farthing into the system.
|
>> The UK benefits seem to me to be remarkably generous to anyone coming here who
>> hasn't paid a brass farthing into the system.
My point was about the standard of living afforded rather than how people come to be eligible.
The fact is our Ukrainian friends, or those given refugee status having arrived by other routes, get the same as those who've live here and paid in.
If both are set at a subsistence level then I'm not sure they're generous to either.
I couldn't keep my self warm, fed and clothed on less that £370/month.
Could you?
|
Obviously I wouldn't want to, especially for a long time, but assuming I was rent free I think I could, albeit with no comforts or frills.
So I'd be on the lookout for some work.
|
>> Obviously I wouldn't want to, especially for a long time, but assuming I was rent
>> free I think I could, albeit with no comforts or frills.
Your rent should be found anyway via the Housing Costs Element though the amount allowed is currently below the 30th centile of market rates in the area.
You'd also be likely, at least in England, to be in the frame for 10-20% (or more) of council tax.
Which is why I said our Ukrainian friend was better off than some.
>> So I'd be on the lookout for some work.
Same amount per month if you're unable to work due to ill health/disability unless your condition is so bad you cannot do any work related activity. And the present government has its sights on that cohort too.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 20 Dec 23 at 09:39
|
>> And the present government
>> has its sights on that cohort too.
>>
Well, you have until January 25th 2025 at the latest to do something about it.
Do not mess it up this time.
|
From DWP benefits statistics:
- 22.6 million people claimed some combination of DWP benefits in February 2023 (of the 17 benefits included in these statistics). Of these:
- 12.8 million were of State Pension Age (including those in receipt of their State Pension)
- 9.2 million were of Working Age
- 620,000 were under 16 (and in receipt of Disability Living Allowance as a child)
A decent society needs to support those who are unable to wholly help themselves. However there is something fundamentally wrong - why do so many working people need benefits:
- is pay too low or are expectations set unrealistically high
- have we created a dependency culture
- are we too tolerant of those failing to take responsibility for their own outcomes
Comparing benefit payments excluding rent, council tax, child care etc etc with normal incomes is a distortion - what does a (say) single parent with two normal kids need to earn before they no longer qualify for benefits payments.
|
>> A decent society needs to support those who are unable to wholly help themselves. However
>> there is something fundamentally wrong - why do so many working people need benefits:
>>
>> - is pay too low or are expectations set unrealistically high
>> - have we created a dependency culture
>> - are we too tolerant of those failing to take responsibility for their own outcomes
The issue, in a single word, is rent. Particularly in private lets. Couple, 2 kids and gross income £41k and only Child Benefit is payable. Add rent at £1k month, low for a lot of areas now, and UC pays them £850/month.
Governments, of both stripes, have made it difficult or impossible to get help towards costs of home ownership, a gross disparity that was once part filled by MIRAS.
The whole thing needs re-examining but there are way too many losers for there to be any realistic chance of it happening.
>> Comparing benefit payments excluding rent, council tax, child care etc etc with normal incomes is
>> a distortion - what does a (say) single parent with two normal kids need to
>> earn before they no longer qualify for benefits payments.
As above, around £40k, which would be close to the mark if both are full time at NLW, assuming no rent or childcare.
|
>>
>> A decent society needs to support those who are unable to wholly help themselves. However
>> there is something fundamentally wrong - why do so many working people need benefits:
>>
>> - is pay too low or are expectations set unrealistically high
>> - have we created a dependency culture
>> - are we too tolerant of those failing to take responsibility for their own outcomes
OK let's open the big can of worms again.
>> - is pay too low or are expectations set unrealistically high
The former I think. Perhaps not in absolute, market, terms to the extent our economy is such that we must compete with low wage economies, but too low for a decent life in our high priced one.
In-work benefits got a big boost under Gordon Brown, because much of the poverty he sought to eradicate was among working people.
I don't think we have a dependency culture or a lack of responsibility, in general. In fact, we shouldn't all need to work so much anyway to provide a reasonable standard of living for all but that's probably another thread on another day (see 'universal basic income' (UBI)).
What has possibly gone wrong is that what should be the equilibrium between capitalism and democratic people power has shifted too much in favour of capital. This could be characterised as the balance between Labour and the Tories. You might be surprised to learn that I mostly blame Labour for this because they screwed up in 2017 and 2019.
Capitalism concentrates wealth in the hands of the capitalists. There is absolutely no doubt about this and it's the bit that Marx got right. For centuries the peasants who directly supported the nobility and their vassals/tenants by growing their food for them merely subsisted, and quite possibly just died when they couldn't work. The nobility were the billionaires of medieval times, and with the income from their lands, gifted by the Crown, were able to live in idleness and luxury. No doubt they believed even then that poor people were just thick and lazy.
Democracy and universal suffrage gives peasants the power to obtain a share of the fruits of their labours. Without some sort of sharing or redistribution most of us would still be scratching a living. The industrial revolution created far more wealth but on its own did little to improve the lot of ordinary folk. That perhaps goes some way to explaining why the Luddites were so cheesed off, among other things.
The Cons are the party of capital and they have been doing what they do, trying to arrange for the owners of capital to keep as much of their wealth as possible. Not surprisingly, after 13+ years of this robbery, large numbers of people who work for a living are struggling.
Of course I don't just blame Labour for not winning enough elections and helping to maintain a fair equilibrium. If both big parties would only share the centre ground, perhaps we could have some long term thinking and real stability. The two-party system has done us no favours at all and the worst possible results will inevitably come when there is the most polarisation of the positions of the major parties.
Cameron was mostly harmless but IMO a dilettante. His motivation was to be PM, rather than to serve, and he badly dropped the ball. May probably wasn't enough of a politician. Johnson, Truss and now Sunak appear respectively to be narcissistic, incompetent, and useless. Now they are not only using their own power to the benefit of their donors by keeping their taxes low but actually subverting democracy by bypassing parliament and stripping away workers rights and the right to protest.
The Cons have indeed conned the populus, with the fairy story that if business does well we will all benefit automatically. Trickle down is anti-gravity, it doesn't exist for people who work in warehouses and call centres or don't have a strong union.
Capitalism is the best way to generate wealth but it only works for everybody when we oompa loompas have power too. We should all be hoping for a Labour win if we want things to improve.
Would a permanent Labour government be any better than a permanent Conservative one? Probably not, although it would be fairer. But we need Labour now.
FWIW, I do think it likely that we will see an increase in taxes and spending a couple of years in if Labour wins. And so there should be. Taxes IMO are unjustifiably low, with a massive hidden public 'debt' in the form of hollowed-out and non-existent services and failing infrastructure. It has to be the right thing to fix not just potholes but e.g.crumbling schools and police stations, social care, housing...
And whilst I think the green prosperity vision is not going to be as easy to realise as some people think, only long-term-minded government intervention can make it happen, the market will not get there quickly enough while oil is still relatively cheap to extract. By the time it does we would all be driving round in Chinese EVs charged up from Chinese wind turbines.
|
Manatee said (amongst other things)
"You might be surprised to learn that I mostly blame Labour for this because they screwed up in 2017 and 2019".
Which I agree with, not because I have ever voted Labour, nor am I likely to do so in the foreseeable future, but Labour had the golden opportunity to get power - and what did they do - they put up Jeremy Corbyn!
History repeating itself, they did the same with Michael Foot with his donkey jacket and Russian cap at the Cenotaph. O.K. it wasn't a donkey jacket, but it was close enough for the tabloid press.
Even I would agree that it's time for a change, but I don't think it is a racing certainty that Labour will necessarily get power. I think it could well be too close for comfort.
|
>> Which I agree with, not because I have ever voted Labour, nor am I likely
>> to do so in the foreseeable future,
Is there any point in voting Labour in your constituency? Time we looked at AV again or some other from of PR.
Same here in SW Herts I think, especially as I think Harpenden is being thrown in under boundary changes and the constituency will be known as Harpenden and Berkhamsted. Although a Labour member I will vote for the candidate least unlikely to beat the Conservatives. IIRC that's what Alastair Campbell was thrown out of the party for.
No it's not a foregone conclusion. They are digging for dirt on Starmer (no need to dig for it on the Tories of course) and the best they have come up with so far is that he has in his early career been defence counsel for some not very nice people, which is no more than a smear. But they will use it. The Tory press, which is practically all of them, will be relentless in their lies and FUD campaign. Hardly anybody reads them, but the headlines get huge exposure in SM.
The Govt is also changing the campaign spend limit from £19.5m to £35m with impeccable timing.
It's pretty obvious that Labour is staying as quiet as possible to limit what the Cons can attack (lie about). Starmer has ordered that all manifesto content should be ready for launch by February, in time for a May election.
It will be interesting to see what new gimmick Sunak has up his sleeve apart from another tax bribe - I'm sure he has something that he hopes will turn the tide.
I still think Labour will win, unless Sunak can arrange for Iceland to invade the Shetlands. But who really knows? I'm pretty sure there are many secret Tory voters.
|
|
The biggest problem for the Labour Party would be a landslide victory. A reasonable working majority is what they need to maintain discipline and avoid factional infighting. Fortunately for Starmer I think the Labour majority will be a lot less than the current polls would suggest.
|
>Hardly anybody reads them, but the headlines get huge exposure in SM.
It would be foolish to underestimate the residual influence of national press. Each paid subscription is probably read by at least two voters in the demographic most likely to vote.
Press Gazette circulation figures:
tinyurl.com/39acbcup
|
>> and what did they do - they put up Jeremy Corbyn!
They lost to Cameron in 2015 but Cons were only the largest party and had to go into coalition.
Nobody, least of all Cameron, expected an overall majority in 2015. The exit poll at 22:00 was a massive shock to all concerned. Not least Cameron who then had to proceed with his hare brained referendum.
In 17 Corbyn came within an ace of being leader of the largest party. Another week's campaign and/or more effort less obstruction from officials in his party and he'd have been there. Yes, you can actually win an election in the UK on a Socialist platform.
2019 was a disaster becuase, to hold on to power, Tory MP's swallowed their pride and their principles to let Johnson's name go forward as their leader.
Literally everything that's wrong in this country today is because the Tory party has sacrificed principles for power.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 21 Dec 23 at 10:09
|
“Literally everything” ?
I think that perhaps you believe that the government has the ability to do more than it actually does. If Labour had been in power for the last five years I suspect that we would still have the same economic woes, the NHS would still be in crisis, immigration would still be a major issue, we would be arguing about who did what in the COVID crisis and war would be raging in the Middle East and Ukraine.
|
>> Literally everything that's wrong in this country today is because the Tory party has sacrificed
>> principles for power.
>>
Well the bloke from Norfolk beat me to it.
If somebody from Norfolk thinks it's silly, then it must be silly.
"and/or more effort less obstruction from officials in his party and he'd have been there."
Dear oh dear. You couldn't make it up, could you?
|
>> >
>> In 17 Corbyn came within an ace of being leader of the largest party. Another
>> week's campaign and/or more effort less obstruction from officials in his party and he'd have
>> been there. Yes, you can actually win an election in the UK on a Socialist
>> platform.
>>
>>
>>
Corbyn came close in 2017 because the Tory campaign was an absolute car crash, a fact I pointed out to local MP Stephen Crabb when I came across him when he was out canvassing one day. He could not comment, obviously, but he had the grace to look embarrassed while his travelling circus stood round uncomfortably looking at their shoes. All May did throughout the run up was to attack Corbyn without putting forward any policies of their own, and what that did was to give him a strong sympathy vote. You'd think they'd have learned after the near loss of the Scots referendum campaign which they nearly blew and then Brtexit vote which they did lose using the same tactics.
|
Her husband has been visiting and recently arrived on one-way ticket.
Interesting that he's been given leave to exit the country. Most 16-69 year old males aren't allowed to leave the country, with a few exemptions.
Most men who want to leave end up swimming across rivers etc to dodge the draft.
|
Yes, we'd discussed that. He's probably mid 40s, seems reasonably fit with no apparent reasons for being treated as an exception. He'd visited before for periods up to two weeks, maybe 4 or times. His business to some degree spanned the Ukraine immediate borders so maybe that was a pretext, though it wasn't a Big Business.
My pal and I mused whether money may have changed hands... :-)
|
Might well have sent some money someones way. Could have got some travel visa for work used it a few a times and not bothered coming back.
I think a few have dodged the draft that way.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 19 Dec 23 at 17:15
|
A simple search "starmer u-turns" quickly turned up this - there are several others to chose from!
www.bigissue.com/news/politics/keir-starmer-broken-promises-tuition-fees-nationalisation-u-turn/
Bluntly - politicians in opposition are impotent. They will sacrifice integrity in pursuit of power. In this Labour are no different to the Tories - but the levers they can pull are inevitably different.
Labour are currently evasive about actual policy commitments, preferring to sit on the side-lines and criticise.
Tories want some real policies to criticise, and there is little point in drawing attention to policy vacillation until an election is in sight.
I do not expect a Tory victory at the next election - tactics will only impact the size of loss.
|
I'm in no doubt that Starmer has performed U turns.
They're the reason why, for the second time in my life, I've resigned from the party over 'rightward drift'.
|
'rightward drift'."
The very reason I and many otheres probably WILL feel that they are able to now vote labour again. Most people in this country are not extremists by nature and will naturally gravitate to the centre in their politics, a fact that those on the extreme right and left seem singularly unable to grasp.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 21 Dec 23 at 15:47
|
>> The very reason I and many otheres probably WILL feel that they are able to
>> now vote labour again.
I take your point but there was very little in Corbyn's 2017 manifesto that would have looked out of place in the era of Wilson and Healey.
|
I take your point but there was very little in Corbyn's 2017 manifesto that would
>> have looked out of place in the era of Wilson and Healey.
>>
I'm sure that's perfectly true but pretty much irrelevant, where are were we are.
There's little point putting up politically pure positions that leave you in opposition forever.
|
Wilson was certainly left wing but he was a skilled politician realised that to stay in power the Labour Party had to be a coalition of both right and left within the party. Corbyn on the other hand was and is politically and economically naive and would have been a disaster probably lasting no longer than Liz Truss when confronted with reality.
|
>> Corbyn on the other hand was and is politically and economically naive
>> and would have been a disaster probably lasting no longer than Liz Truss when confronted
>> with reality.
My Xmas reading is Nick Thomas-Symonds biography of Wilson. He (Wilson) was indeed a skilled politician and whether he was of the left or a 'moderate' is a debate that continues.
Those who think Corbyn as PM would fail in short order underestimate those who would have been around him, in particular John MacDonnell who would have been Chancellor. He was no Kwasi Kwarteng.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 21 Dec 23 at 16:36
|
|
I think it would be very difficult to underestimate John McDonnell, a view fortunatley shared it would seem by Starmer
|
What would have done for Corbyn, and possibly Labour, had he won was that the grown ups in the parliamentary party did not want him and in some cases resigned from his front bench.
Cameron can at least do politics. Sunak seems to have no idea. What he thought the benefit of publically shaming the Greek PM was we will never know. I gradually coming to the view that Starmer might have been smarter than I thought.
If the worst thing about him is that he has changed his mind about a few things then I can live with that. There's no doubt in my mind that Labour will be detectably left of centre in office and Starmer (touching wood of course) looks as pure as the driven compared with those on the opposite benches.
|
>>
>>
>> If the worst thing about him is that he has changed his mind about a
>> few things then I can live with that.
>>
Often the sign of an intelligent and open minded person who learns from experience. Those, however, who hold the same entrenched beliefs they had when they were eighteen for the whole of their lives are the polar opposite.
|
|
But Starmer can't claim to have changed his mind about this that or the other. On the odd occasion that he's forgotten himself and expressed an opinion his PR team immediately issue a press release 'clarifying' what he really meant.
|
It seems Starmer's detractors can't decide whether he has no policies or too many.
Does anyone know what Sunak stands for, apart from a new slogan every 3 months? Long term decisions for a brighter future? That might make sense if they had just come into office, but after 13 years with a GE imminent, it's laughable.
There's plenty going on with Labour for those who care to look. The challenge is that the scope for improving things in the short term diminishes all the time, which is a major factor in Starmer's thinking. Expectations are being managed, while the Conservatives seem now to be focussed on sabotaging a future Labour government and the country's options.
|
You're confusing policies with positions.
|
|
Oh, and no. I don't have any idea what Sunak stands for either. I think he's out of his depth.
|
>> Oh, and no. I don't have any idea what Sunak stands for either. I think
>> he's out of his depth.
For once I agree with Kevin. Today's news over earnings thresholds for partner visas emphasises the point.
|
>For once I agree with Kevin.
Printed, framed and given pride of place above my desk :-)
|
www.itv.com/news/2023-12-28/blair-aides-wanted-asylum-holding-camp-on-the-isle-of-mull
Reading that seems blair and braverman had very similar ideas on asylum, even down to sending people to Africa.
|
|
Good God! Imagine being transported to the Isle of Mull in winter. That would have deterred the most determined asylum seeker. Given the choice I would be begging for a flight to Rwanda.
|
So, to summarise, the Blair government did not leave ECHR or send anybody to Africa?
As they evidently kicked it around, they presumably actively decided not to do it. That's the difference.
|
....yeah but Mull (and Corbyn) though...
...and, to be fair, though the Tories have actively decided to do at least some of that, neither have they ;-)
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Fri 29 Dec 23 at 18:59
|
>> So, to summarise, the Blair government did not leave ECHR or send anybody to Africa?
>>
>> As they evidently kicked it around, they presumably actively decided not to do it. That's
>> the difference.
>>
>>
So, to summarise, I didn't suggest they did.
The concept, plans, language and objective were very similar and were worth comparing.
|
>> So, to summarise, I didn't suggest they did.
>>
>> The concept, plans, language and objective were very similar and were worth comparing.
My recollection is that 'ouster' clauses to remove the option of Judicial Review were contemplated by Blunkett but not pushed forward due to opposition from various 'wise men'.
Without getting too partisan the differences are as interesting as the simlarities.
|
And I didn't suggest you did suggest it:)
It does in a way support Johnson's contention that when people in meetings say things like "let it rip", "they're all going to die anyway" etc it's really not surprising and frankly nothing to get on the high horse about. I agree with him that anything can be raised as an idea - it's a well known creative process.
|
Braverman - Bromptonaut
