Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s loss to the SDP in the Greenwich by-election exactly 30
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s loss to the SDP in the Greenwich by-election exactly 30 years ago has lessons for the party today
30 years ago today (roughly), I was pounding the wet streets of Greenwich on a miserable cold Thursday evening. I was doing knock-up for this woman:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Martin Fry of ABC!
Wise words indeed.
https://twitter.com/emilydugan/status/835894090193592321
Far too many politicians speak in anodyne phrases, it is nice to see someone using a few colour metaphors and similes.
Her sister could be a bit more hospitable too!
I thought that someone could apply for UK citizenship after five years residence, so am surprised to read that the lady hasn't got it after 30 years.
For information:
You can apply for British citizenship by naturalisation if:
you’re 18 or over
you’re of good character, for example, you don’t have a serious or recent criminal record, and you haven’t tried to deceive the Home Office or been involved in immigration offences in the last 10 years
you’ll continue to live in the UK
you’ve met the knowledge of English and life in the UK requirements
you meet the residency requirement
And you must usually have:
lived in the UK for at least the 5 years before the date of your application
spent no more than 450 days outside the UK during those 5 years
spent no more than 90 days outside the UK in the last 12 months
had settlement (‘indefinite leave to remain’) in the UK for the last 12 months if you’re from outside the European Economic Area (EEA)
had permanent residence status for the last 12 months if you’re a citizen of an EEA country - you need to provide a permanent residence document
not broken any immigration laws while in the UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4261334/Chakrabarti-blames-Copeland-loss-carless-Labour-voters.html
Reminds me of toothpaste-gate...
I am not sure what groups currently in contact with Corbyn are advocating such behaviour.? No palestinian groups or Irish groups involved in the peace process advocate violence against UK nationals or UK mil personnel.
The N Ireland peace process was precisely brought about by engagement with PIRA (by the Conservatives & Labour) so your point is a bit off the mark and recycles the usual D mail hysteria.
People fall down cracks and this appears to be an example of that.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/835872422792429569
I was considering comparing Corbyn to Flaccus at the first Battle of Herdonia but that was too obvious for PB.
The first sentence was a problem - "knocking up Rosie Barnes on the streets of Greenwich" might have been misconstrued.
By the way, it's Finbarr, not Finbar, I think you'll find.
I actually agree, to some extent. While he causes many additional problems his being elected was a symptom of a problem that already existed, and simple fact is even if he is not worthy of visceral contempt, he is incapable of the role he holds. She's a party robot now, and one who reached for all the lazy and cliched answers to defend her side. Even though she's only been a party member for a short time, she has been in the public eye for a long time, she should be better at this game. It is surprising (though I have a relative in Oz who has been there 40 years without bothering to take citizenship), but if we've allowed someone to stay for 30 years even if they are not a citizen I would hope it would take a lot to justify deportation. I will have to look into the matter to see if this is an unfortunate byproduct of policy, or if the policy itself is seriously unfair. The details can be very important.
“Yet Labour’s biggest problem isn’t Corbyn – the much more serious problem is that Labour has nothing to offer in way of a credible alternative prospectus for Government.”
Whilst I largely agree I would say that there are some morsels of comfort for Labour, if they look in the right places and act sensibly.
Firstly, Corbyn is obviously a dud, so it reasonably follows that appointing a leader perceived as competent and not a Londoner would provide an immediate boost.
Secondly, within the usually awful polls there are odd snippets that offer a glimmer of revival if they get the leadership issue right. 28% of SNP voters do not want independence while as many believe Donald Dewar was Scotland’s best ever First Minister as believe Nicola Sturgeon is and far more than believe it of Alex Salmond. That implies latent sympathy for a certain type of Labour in Scotland. Choose accordingly.
Thirdly, the government is approaching a primary surplus and with it the age of austerity will soon cease to be a perceived necessity. Labour governments need money in the pot.
Fourth, the SNP’s independence budget is pipe dreams. Unionism still trumps independence in Scotland.
Fifth, Brexit puts the emphasis on the Tories to develop and implement an immigration plan. Labour can then just pledge to maintain it in essence without ever having been the implementation team.
Sixth, Brexit changes the policy arena so that trade, manufacturing, tax policy on imported produce etc become live issues instead of ‘what can we do- it’s all decided in Brussels’ ones.
This creates a new area for debate and forward thinking.
So, get the correct personnel in place. The election is three years away. Do not waste it clinging to the past; seize the future and accept what the people have said in referendums. Drop the toxic (North/Inner) London link with key personnel.
She claims she can't live in Singapore because nobody would accept her, but then she has failed the test (and a number of appeals) of being able to show that over the past 30 years she has lived for the majority of the time with her husband i.e. she must have lived in Singapore for significant periods of that time, and not just popped home to look after Mum and Dad for a few months, even few years.
Furthermore, its seems she has been living here illegally for quite a while, as her visitor visa ran out last year, and is surprised that the authorities have now come to deport her. And only after deportation now saying she needs to make another appeal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_make-up_of_local_councils_in_the_United_Kingdom
It indicates we have ruled and apply them equally to all, which is a positive.
It also indicates we are inflexible and unable to adapt to specific circumstances which is a negative.
But not embarrasing
The way she was deported sounds a bit harsh though, esp if the old man is ill
It actually wouldn't be a terrible idea for a political realignment, as many have raised on here, but it's so hard, so likely to fail, that actually following through is tough for anyone.
Yougov sub sample (I know it is only a cross break) SNP 49%, Tory 23% and LABOUR 11%!!!!!
The problem was the relationships Corbyn and others had with PIRA, HAMAS and others in the 1980s and before. This was when these groups were actively using violence to further their political goals and when that violence was directed against British interests. When British MPs are seen to be supporting groups whose modus operandi was violence against British military personnel - that becomes very hard to justify even if Governments had done the same in secret.
You might call it double standards - I would - but it's also realpolitik.
As I read it, she lived in Singapore from 1992 until 2013 before returning to the UK. Her British husband gave up work last year due to ill health, so I would guess that they failed the income test.
A very sad case, but maybe not quite what was being reported by Buzzfeed?
"Buzzfeed is lying"
Says the liar.
Also, it is says she has 3 sisters in Singapore, so again we aren't sending somebody packing with no family...and unless she is a total weirdo, having lived there for many many years, friends as well.
The quote in the buzzfeed article is embarrassingly bullshit, about not being able to live in Singaporean society. You know that one she has lived in for the majority of her life.
This is what cutting immigration to tens of thousands means. People voted for it, including TSE, so he shouldn't really be appalled.
"The democrats were formed in 2017 by a group of people who lost, then refused to accept the outcome of, a democratic vote"
Lets call it Brietbart-ian.
There is no judgement involved on the part of the home office, it is simply a case that he cannot support her and so therefore she is ineligible for a visa to stay here. Those are the rules and thats it. There really is no discretion involved on the part of decision makers.
It is quite remarkable and telling that you cannot be sympathetic towards her position.
Blair's intervention was a calculated part of it, IMHO.
Mate of mines brother and family moved to Florida many years back, they had a successful business and they had been there for more years than I remember.
Then he was told he and his son had to go to US embassy in London for a meeting - details are hazy now as this happened years back but I don't think he had a clue what would happen next.
He was told he and his son could not live in States and were not even allowed back to help wife and daughter sell business / house and move back.
The kids were high school age at this time and found it a huge wrench.
Mandelson
Clegg
Contenders for the most detested trio in British politics.
A 14 pt Tory -> Labour swing, far above the 8.1 average for the 83-87 parliament.
The Lib Dems are already the party of metropolitan elite remain ultras. The "Democrats" would be neither the party of patriotic conservatism nor the party of socialism red in tooth and claw. They would be the party of continuity "carry on folks, neoliberalism's fine", a viewpoint which has received a monumental stuffing in the UK and beyond the last few years. It would be a party to which everyone is invited but no-one comes.
I could imagine there being space in the FPTP system for a party firmly behind the views of bellwether constituencies like Nuneaton etc. But the risibly named "Democrat" party of Blair, Osborne and other continuity remainers ain't it.
I think the second paragraph is a bit vague about the third party in the Greenwich by-election.
The Conservatives had finished a close second in Greenwich in 1983:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_by-election,_1987
and if Guy Barnett had lived a few more months Greenwich might well have been a Conservative gain at the 1987 general election.
Nixon, Brandt and others sought to change the rules of the game - both John Major and Tony Blair, along with Bill Clinton, deserve credit for trying to bring a lasting peace to Ulster. Some feel they bent over too far to appease Sinn Fein, perhaps, but they tried.
Good header. While the SDP precedent is not good, a new "Democrats" would be a different kettle of fish. This is not 1981, and the Unions have not the strength they did then, and Corbyn is not as electable as Foot.
I could see it working, but only if over half the PLP moved over, a handful of defectors is neither here nor there.
The worst thing for Labour is turpor. They'd do better to die quickly than hang around as a rump...
The "Yes it's true, we are all the same" Party.
But if you want to create a new party having some of the most unpopular politicians leading it isn't a good idea.
Asda has it for sale at £8 a bottle for the Cabernet Sauvignon.
That would leave the Conservatives, Labour and UKIP scrapping over the LEAVE vote while the Democrats sailed to a landslide in 2020.
Perhaps not...but it would be May's nightmare.
Your point about not making or bending law is a fair one, but immigration is totally arbitrary in practice. Some others would be allowed in under essentially the same circumstances.
Focus on the next battle - how a post-independence UK will function.
Your bringing up the vote for a tory government would suggest anyone arguing against government policy is going against a democratic vote, which cannot have been the intention, otherwise it would be undemocratic to have an opposition! Were you assuming I was saying the Hard Brexit choice was undemocratic? Because it wasn't and isn't. It was an option open to government. Why is it undemocratic for people to try to make the government make a different choice on that, while we still leave?
As long as we do leave, the democratic vote has been followed. Any form of leave is therefore on the table. The government has decided Hard Brexit is the best form (not to mention the easiest to achieve). They may or may not be right about that. The public as a whole might not like certain forms of leave. But if we're out, we're out, regardless of the form.